Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 05/03/2019 02:32 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by N. Alvarez,Deputy Clerk 19STCV15551 Assigned for all purposes to: Spring Street Courthouse, Judicial Officer: Jon Takasugi 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mikayla Gow Kellogg, Esq. (SBN 268185) mkellogg@kva-law.com Kelly D. Van Aken, Esq. (SBN 274175) kvanaken@kva-law.com KELLOGG & VAN AKEN LLP One Embarcadero Center, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 539-3100 Facsimile: (415) 539-3101 Attorneys for Plaintiffs JOHN DOE 20, et al. 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 JOHN DOE 20, an Individual JOHN DOE 21, an Individual; JOHN DOE 22, an Individual; JOHN DOE 23, an Individual; JOHN DOE 24, an Individual; JOHN DOE 25, an Individual; JOHN DOE 26, an Individual; JOHN DOE 27, an Individual; JOHN DOE 28, an Individual; JOHN DOE 29, an Individual; JOHN DOE 30, an Individual; JOHN DOE 31, an Individual; JOHN DOE 32, an Individual; JOHN DOE 33, an Individual; JOHN DOE 34, an Individual; JOHN DOE 35, an Individual; JOHN DOE 36, an Individual; and JOHN DOE 37, an Individual, 19 Plaintiffs, 20 v. 21 22 23 24 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, a California Corporation; DENNIS A. KELLY, M.D., an Individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants. 25 26 27 Case No: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1. SEXUAL BATTERY (Civil Code § 1708.5); 2. BATTERY; 3. GENDER VIOLENCE (Civil Code Section 52.4); 4. SEXUAL HARASSMENT (Civil Code Section 51.9); 5. VIOLATION OF THE UNRUH ACT (Civil Code Section 51); 6. VIOLATION OF THE BANE ACT (Civil Code Section 52.1); 7. SEXUAL ABUSE AND DISCRIMINATION IN AN EDUCATIONAL SETTING (Education Code Section 220); 8. NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION; 9. NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION; 10. FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION; 11. FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT; 12. NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION 28 -1COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 13. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; 14. NEGLIGENCE; and 15. UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES (Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.); 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Plaintiffs JOHN DOE 20, JOHN DOE 21, JOHN DOE 22, JOHN DOE 23, JOHN DOE 24, JOHN DOE 25, JOHN DOE 26, JOHN DOE 27, JOHN DOE 28, JOHN DOE 29, JOHN DOE 30, JOHN DOE 31, JOHN DOE 32, JOHN DOE 33, JOHN DOE 34, JOHN DOE 35, JOHN DOE 36, and JOHN DOE 37 (hereinafter, “Plaintiffs”) for causes of action against Defendants UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA (hereinafter, “USC”), DENNIS A. KELLY, M.D. (hereinafter, “Dr. Kelly”) and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”) hereby allege as follows: INTRODUCTION 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. This action arises from the discrimination, sexual assault, battery, and abuse of 18 additional young gay and bisexual men, and men whose sexual partners were men, while they were students at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, California. Dr. Dennis A. Kelly, the only full-time men’s sexual health doctor on staff at USC’s Student Health Center, used his position of trust, authority, and power to sexually abuse, harass, and molest Plaintiffs and discriminate against them based on their sexual orientation and/or gender. Dr. Kelly’s conduct included, but was not limited to: shaming, humiliating, and judging Plaintiffs for engaging in sexual acts with men; questioning Plaintiffs’ sexual history using demeaning and derogatory terms, including whether Plaintiffs gave “rim jobs,” “ate ass,” “deep throated,” “doggy-style,” and “sucked dick”; demanding Plaintiffs remove their pants and underwear in front of Dr. Kelly while he refused to leave the room or provide Plaintiffs with privacy; directing Plaintiffs to climb onto the medical examination table and get on their hands and knees while they were naked from the -2COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 waist down without any standard medical covering, drapery, or robe for privacy; refusing to 2 provide Plaintiffs with a standard medical covering, drapery, or a robe for privacy during 3 examinations despite Plaintiffs’ requests; making inappropriate comments to Plaintiffs during 4 consultations or examinations regarding their physical appearance or sexual practices; insisting on 5 performing unnecessary “genital examinations” on Plaintiffs; failing to provide explanations for 6 the purpose or reason behind performing “genital examinations” on Plaintiffs; failing to answer 7 Plaintiffs’ questions regarding the purpose or reason behind performing “genital examinations” on 8 Plaintiffs; insisting on performing unnecessary “rectal examinations” on Plaintiffs; failing to 9 provide explanations for the purpose or reason behind performing “rectal examinations” on 10 Plaintiffs; failing to answer Plaintiffs’ questions regarding the purpose or reason behind 11 performing “rectal examinations” on Plaintiffs; failing to provide explanations for the purpose or 12 reason behind performing “prostate examinations” on Plaintiffs; penetrating Plaintiffs’ anuses 13 with his finger(s) and/or medical devices without telling Plaintiffs what he was doing during the 14 examination; and penetrating Plaintiffs’ anuses with his finger(s) and/or medical devices without 15 any legitimate medical purpose and for no other reason than to satisfy his own prurient sexual 16 desires and/or to shame, humiliate, and embarrass Plaintiffs as a result of their sexual orientation 17 and sexual practices. 18 2. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Dr. Kelly was targeting 19 the gay and bisexual male student population – all of whom were young adults and some of whom 20 were visiting the doctor without a parent for the first time – by subjecting them to intrusive and 21 medically unnecessary “rectal examinations.” Dr. Kelly did not treat men he knew to be 22 heterosexual or men who were not interested in men in a similar manner and did not penetrate 23 their anuses or perform rectal examinations. Because Dr. Kelly was the only men’s sexual health 24 doctor at USC, Plaintiffs were forced to receive medical treatment from him for any concern 25 related to their sexual health which continuously subjected Plaintiffs to Dr. Kelly’s abusive and 26 discriminatory conduct. Defendant USC entrusted the Plaintiffs’ safety and care to Dr. Kelly. 27 Despite receiving repeated complaints regarding Dr. Kelly’s misconduct, USC actively and 28 deliberately failed to investigate, discipline, or address Dr. Kelly’s sexually abusive and -3COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 discriminatory behavior and instead, continued to employ Dr. Kelly for years, allowing him 2 unencumbered access to sexually abuse, harass, and discriminate against Plaintiffs and other male 3 gay and bisexual USC students in his care. 4 5 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 3. Plaintiffs John Doe 20, John Doe 21, John Doe 22, John Doe 23, John Doe 24, John 6 Doe 25, John Doe 26, John Doe 27, John Doe 28, John Doe 29, John Doe 30, John Doe 31, John 7 Doe 32, John Doe 33, John Doe 34, John Doe 35, John Doe 36, and John Doe 37 at all relevant 8 times herein, resided in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 9 4. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant University of 10 Southern California is, and at all times relevant herein was, a California Corporation, having its 11 principal place of business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, and was doing 12 substantial business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 13 5. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant Dennis A. 14 Kelly, M.D., at all times relevant herein, was and is an adult male individual over the age of 18 15 who resides in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. 16 6. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued herein as 17 Does 1 through 100, inclusive, and therefore sue these defendants by these fictitious names. 18 Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of these defendants 19 when ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that each of the 20 fictitiously named defendants are responsible in some manner for the occurrences alleged in this 21 Complaint, and that Plaintiffs’ damages alleged in this Complaint were proximately caused by 22 those defendants. 23 7. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all relevant times 24 herein, Defendants and each of them, in addition to acting for himself, herself, or itself and on his, 25 her, or its own behalf individually, is and was acting as the principal, agent, partner, joint venturer, 26 officer, director, controlling shareholder, subsidiary, affiliate, parent corporation, successor in 27 interest, predecessor in interest, servant, employee and/or representative of, and with the 28 -4COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 knowledge, consent, and permission of, and in conspiracy with, each and all of the Defendants and 2 within the course, scope, and authority of those relationships. 3 8. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereon allege that each Defendant 4 acted pursuant to and within the scope of the relationships alleged above, and that each Defendant 5 knew or should have known about and authorized, ratified, adopted, approved, controlled, and 6 aided and abetted the conduct of all other Defendants. 7 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8 9 10 9. At all times relevant herein, all Plaintiffs resided in the County of Los Angeles. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that all Defendants reside in the County of Los Angeles. The conduct described herein was committed in the County of Los Angeles. 11 JOHN DOE 20 12 10. Plaintiff John Doe 20 is a male who was born in 1987 and who currently resides in 13 Illinois. At the time of his visits with Dr. Kelly, Plaintiff John Doe 20 was a graduate student at 14 USC. 15 11. In or around November 2012, in order to obtain a male sexual health examination 16 as part of an ordinary medical health regimen, including testing for sexually transmitted diseases, 17 Plaintiff John Doe 20 made an appointment with USC’s Student Health Center. USC scheduled 18 John Doe 20 with the only male sexual health doctor on staff at USC’s Student Health Center, Dr. 19 Kelly. 20 12. Plaintiff John Doe 20 went to his appointment and was taken by USC staff to Dr. 21 Kelly’s private office. Dr. Kelly began asking Plaintiff John Doe 20 a series of invasive and 22 uncomfortable questions regarding his sexual history and experiences, including whether he had 23 sex with men, how many male sexual partners he had in his lifetime, how many male sexual 24 partners he had in the past year, how many male sexual partners he had in the past week, what 25 kind of sexual activities he had engaged in, whether he consumed pornography, what form of 26 pornography he consumed, how much pornography he consumes, and whether he used sex toys. 27 Plaintiff John Doe 20 answered Dr. Kelly’s questions and informed Dr. Kelly that he had a 28 husband but that they were in an open relationship. During his questioning, Dr. Kelly made the -5COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 offensive and shaming comment, “Wow. That is the highest number of sexual partners of any of 2 my other patients.” Dr. Kelly asked how John Doe 20 met men, including whether he used dating 3 apps. When Plaintiff John Doe 20 said that he had used dating apps, Dr. Kelly was not satisfied 4 and said, “I need to know which ones.” Throughout Dr. Kelly’s questioning, he was 5 condescending and judgmental, making Plaintiff John Doe 20 feel uncomfortable and shamed. 6 Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Dr. Kelly’s questioning and 7 commentary were designed to shame, humiliate, and control John Doe 20 so that he would be 8 silenced and so that Dr. Kelly could continue the sexual abuse and discrimination of young gay 9 and bisexual males at USC without restraint. 10 13. Despite Plaintiff John Doe 20’s lack of symptoms, Dr. Kelly instructed John Doe 11 20 to follow him back to his exam room for a physical examination, including a prostate 12 examination and a rectal examination. Dr. Kelly then led John Doe 20 to an examination room so 13 that it was just John Doe 20 and Dr. Kelly in the room. Dr. Kelly then instructed Plaintiff John 14 Doe 20 to undress from the waist down. Dr. Kelly did not leave the room or turn around while 15 John Doe 20 undressed. Dr. Kelly did not provide Plaintiff John Doe 20 with any sort of standard 16 medical modesty covering, such as a robe or lap draping, making John Doe 20 feel exposed and 17 uncomfortable. Dr. Kelly stood in front of John Doe 20 as he undressed. 18 14. Without saying a word about the details of the examination, the process, or what to 19 expect, Dr. Kelly began using his hands to inspect John Doe 20’s penis and testicles, looking at his 20 genitalia for a prolonged period of time. Dr. Kelly remarked about the fact that John Doe 20 was 21 uncircumcised. He felt around John Doe 20’s testicles and pulled back John Doe 20’s foreskin. 22 Dr. Kelly did not swab John Doe 20’s genitals or take any sample. 23 15. Dr. Kelly then informed John Doe 20 that he would be conducting a prostate 24 examination and a rectal examination with an anoscope. John Doe 20, who was approximately 25 25 at the time and had never had a prostate exam during any of his previous screenings, thought it 26 was odd that Dr. Kelly wanted to conduct a prostate examination. Dr. Kelly told John Doe 20 to 27 turn around and get on top of the examination table “on all fours” with his arms down by his side. 28 As John Doe 20 was on his chest and knees on the medical examination table facing the wall and -6COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 with his buttocks in the air facing Dr. Kelly, undressed from the waist down, Plaintiff John Doe 20 2 felt Dr. Kelly insert his finger into his anus and felt around and pressing on his prostate for 45 3 seconds to a minute. John Doe 20 then suddenly felt a medical device inserted into his rectum. 4 John Doe 20 could feel Dr. Kelly looking around for a while, and then, while the anoscope was 5 still in his rectum, felt Dr. Kelly insert a swab far into his rectum, which was much deeper than a 6 swab had ever needed to be inserted during any of his previous STI screenings. 7 16. The physical examination continued for several minutes. During the examination, 8 Dr. Kelly was silent as Plaintiff John Doe 20 was splayed on his hands and knees without any 9 drapery or covering, feeling exposed, humiliated, and distressed. Although he did not realize it at 10 the time, Plaintiff John Doe 20 now knows that Dr. Kelly was not providing legitimate medical 11 treatment to him but was instead sexually abusing him to further his own prurient desires and/or to 12 discriminate, shame, humiliate, and embarrass him as a result of his sexual orientation and/or 13 gender. Plaintiff John Doe 20 felt uncomfortable after his first visit with Dr. Kelly, so he sent an 14 email to the Student Health Center asking what the process was to file a grievance, but never 15 received a response. He decided he would seek routine STI screenings from the Los Angeles 16 LGBT Center. 17 17. Plaintiff John Doe 20 was forced to visit Dr. Kelly on multiple other occasions 18 during his time as a graduate student from 2012 to 2018 for sexual health checkups. During each 19 occasion, Dr. Kelly condemned Plaintiff John Doe 20’s sexual behavior, made him feel ashamed 20 for his actions, and caused him to feel unsafe and bad about himself. During one visit when Dr. 21 Kelly informed Plaintiff John Doe 20 that he had tested positive for an STD by saying, “As I’m 22 sure you know, you got it.” During other visits Dr. Kelly conducted similar invasive rectal 23 examinations, even freezing off what Dr. Kelly described as a skin tag without asking Plaintiff 24 John Doe 20 whether he wanted him to. In or around Spring 2014, Plaintiff John Doe 20 received 25 a link from the Student Health Center requesting that Plaintiff John Doe 20 complete an online 26 survey about his experience. Plaintiff John Doe 20 voiced his complaints about Dr. Kelly, but 27 received no response or follow up. 28 \\\ -7COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 18. Although Dr. Kelly’s purported “medical examinations” caused John Doe 20 to 2 suffer embarrassment, humiliation, shame, pain, and discomfort, and in reasonable reliance upon 3 Defendant USC’s active concealment of its knowledge that Dr. Kelly was a sexual predator and 4 discriminated against men on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or gender, Plaintiff John 5 Doe 20 trusted that Dr. Kelly was in fact conducting a legitimate medical procedure due to his 6 position of authority as a physician employed by Defendant USC. Moreover, John Doe 20 had no 7 choice but to receive care from Dr. Kelly, as he was the only full-time men's sexual health 8 physician at Defendant USC's Student Health Center. 9 19. It was only after allegations regarding Dr. Kelly’s sexual misconduct and 10 discrimination became public in or around February 2019 that Plaintiff John Doe 20 realized that 11 Dr. Kelly’s treatment of him was not for a legitimate medical purpose, but was rather sexual abuse 12 committed to discriminate against him based on his sexual orientation and/or gender and/or for Dr. 13 Kelly’s own sexual gratification. 14 15 16 17 JOHN DOE 21 20. Plaintiff John Doe 21 is a male who was born in 1988 and who currently resides in Mississippi. Plaintiff John Doe 21 was a graduate student at USC from 2010 to 2011. 21. In or around June 2011, in order to obtain a male sexual health examination as part 18 of an ordinary medical health regimen, including testing for sexually transmitted diseases, Plaintiff 19 John Doe 21 made an appointment with USC’s Student Health Center. USC scheduled John Doe 20 21 with the only male sexual health doctor on staff at USC’s Student Health Center, Dr. Kelly. 21 Plaintiff John Doe 21’s had never had a sexual health examination before and had not yet come 22 out as gay to his friends and family. 23 22. Plaintiff John Doe 21 went to his appointment and was taken by USC staff to Dr. 24 Kelly’s private office. When Plaintiff John Doe 21 told Dr. Kelly that he had been engaged in 25 sexual activity with men, Dr. Kelly remarked, “Oh my god” and his entire tone changed. Dr. 26 Kelly began asking Plaintiff John Doe 21 a series of invasive and uncomfortable regarding his 27 sexual history and experiences, including how many male sexual partners he had, whether he used 28 sex toys, whether he had ever been paid for sex, how often he watched pornography, and whether -8COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 he “topped or bottomed.” When John Doe 21 responded that he had done both, Dr. Kelly 2 responded, “Oh my goodness.” Dr. Kelly asked John Doe whether he used condoms, to which 3 John Doe 21 responded that he usually did but that he had unprotected sex once. Dr. Kelly 4 responded, “I can’t believe you did that.” Dr. Kelly then asked how John Doe 21 met men, 5 including whether he met men on dating apps, John Doe 21 said he did. Dr. Kelly’s face looked 6 horrified and said, “Oh my god, we have to get you tested right now.” Throughout Dr. Kelly’s 7 questioning, he was condescending and judgmental, making Plaintiff John Doe 21 feel 8 uncomfortable and unsafe. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Dr. Kelly’s 9 questioning and commentary were designed to scare, shame, humiliate, and control John Doe 21 10 so that he would be silenced and so that Dr. Kelly could continue the sexual abuse and 11 discrimination of young gay and bisexual males at USC without restraint. 12 23. Despite Plaintiff John Doe 21’s lack of symptoms or concerns, Dr. Kelly insisted 13 that John Doe 21 have a physical examination, including a rectal exam. Dr. Kelly then led John 14 Doe 21 to an examination room so that it was just John Doe 21 and Dr. Kelly in the room. Dr. 15 Kelly then instructed Plaintiff John Doe 21 to undress from the waist down. Dr. Kelly did not 16 leave the room or turn around while John Doe 21 undressed. Dr. Kelly did not provide Plaintiff 17 John Doe 21 with any sort of standard medical modesty covering, such as a robe or lap draping, 18 making John Doe 21 feel exposed and uncomfortable. 19 24. Without saying a word about the details of the examination, the process, or what to 20 expect, Dr. Kelly began using his hands, feeling John Doe 21’s penis and scrotum with his fingers, 21 and looking at his genitalia for a prolonged period of time, making John Doe 21 extremely 22 uncomfortable and distressed. 23 25. Dr. Kelly then instructed John Doe 21 to get on the examination table “on all 24 fours.” Thinking this was an odd position, John Doe 21 asked, “On all fours?” To which Dr. 25 Kelly responded, “Yes.” As John Doe 21 was on his hands and knees on the medical examination 26 table facing away from Dr. Kelly and undressed from the waist down, without any warning, 27 Plaintiff John Doe 21 felt Dr. Kelly using both of his hands to spread John Doe 21’s buttocks 28 apart, and look at his anus. He then said, “Oh my god!” John Doe 21 asked, “What?” To which -9COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 Dr. Kelly responded, “You have anal warts.” He then suddenly felt a sharp pain as a swab was 2 inserted into his rectum without warning. John Doe 21 was shocked and confused because, 3 although he did not tell Dr. Kelly, he never had unprotected receptive anal sex. 4 26. Dr. Kelly then told John Doe 21 that he needed to treat John Doe 21 immediately 5 by freezing the warts. John Doe 21 did not feel he had a choice given Dr. Kelly’s insistence, and 6 Dr. Kelly proceeded with the treatment, which was painful and long. 7 27. The physical examination and purported treatment continued for approximately 8 fifteen to twenty minutes. Although he did not realize it at the time, Plaintiff John Doe 21 now 9 knows that Dr. Kelly was not providing legitimate medical treatment to him but was instead 10 sexually abusing him to further his own prurient desires and/or to discriminate, shame, humiliate, 11 and embarrass him as a result of his sexual orientation and/or gender. The examination and 12 treatment were so painful that they caused Plaintiff John Doe 21 to bleed and experience pain for 13 several days. 14 28. Plaintiff John Doe 21 was scheduled to return for follow up visits with Dr. Kelly 15 for purported continued treatment for anal warts, but uncomfortable with the way the treatment 16 and exams were conducted, Plaintiff John Doe 21 decided not to proceed with Dr. Kelly and 17 instead to seek treatment from the Los Angeles LGBT Center. Plaintiff John Doe 21 informed his 18 treater at the LGBT center that Dr. Kelly diagnosed him with anal warts from HPV and that Dr. 19 Kelly had conducted treatment on him. Plaintiff John Doe 21’s treater at the LGBT Center 20 conducted a rectal examination on John Doe 21, which was conducted completely differently from 21 how Dr. Kelly conducted his exam. The LGBT Center gave him a robe and left the room to 22 undress, and the examination was conducted on his side rather than all fours with his bare buttocks 23 in the air on top of an examination table. Upon examination, Plaintiff John Doe 21’s treater at the 24 LGBT Center informed John Doe 21 that he did not demonstrate anything indicating he had any 25 form of HPV or warts but that he did have some hemorrhoid scarring from hemorrhoids that pre- 26 dated his appointment with Dr. Kelly. The LGBT Center also conducted an STI screening of 27 Plaintiff John Doe 21, the results of which were negative. 28 \\\ -10COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 29. Since discontinuing his visits with Dr. Kelly, none of Plaintiff John Doe 21’s 2 treaters have found that John Doe 21 has anal warts or HPV during any of his subsequent rectal 3 examinations or treatment, including those for hemorrhoids. 4 30. Although Dr. Kelly’s purported “medical examination” caused John Doe 21 to 5 suffer embarrassment, humiliation, shame, pain, and discomfort, and in reasonable reliance upon 6 Defendant USC’s active concealment of its knowledge that Dr. Kelly was a sexual predator and 7 discriminated against men on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or gender, Plaintiff John 8 Doe 21 trusted that Dr. Kelly was in fact conducting a legitimate medical procedure due to his 9 position of authority as a physician employed by Defendant USC. Moreover, John Doe 21 had no 10 choice but to receive care from Dr. Kelly, as he was the only full-time men's sexual health 11 physician at Defendant USC's Student Health Center. 12 31. It was only in or around July of 2018, after the Los Angeles Times published an 13 article exposing USC’s gynecologist George Tyndall of rampant sexual abuse of female students 14 for decades at USC, and USC’s knowledge and concealment of such abuse, that Plaintiff John Doe 15 21 realized, for the first time, that Dr. Kelly’s actions were not for a legitimate medical purpose, 16 but rather committed to discriminate against him based on his sexual orientation and/or gender 17 and/or were purely motivated by Dr. Kelly’s own prurient desires and sexual gratification. 18 19 JOHN DOE 22 32. Plaintiff John Doe 22 is a male over the age of 18 and who currently resides in Los 20 Angeles County, California. At the time of his visit with Dr. Kelly, Plaintiff John Doe 22 was an 21 undergraduate student at USC from 2015 to 2018. 22 33. In early 2018, in order to obtain a male sexual health examination as part of an 23 ordinary medical health regimen, including testing for sexually transmitted diseases, Plaintiff John 24 Doe 22 made an appointment with USC’s Student Health Center. USC scheduled John Doe 22 25 with the only male sexual health doctor on staff at USC’s Student Health Center, Dr. Kelly. 26 34. Plaintiff John Doe 22 went to his appointment and was taken by USC staff to Dr. 27 Kelly’s private office. Dr. Kelly began asking Plaintiff John Doe 22 a series of invasive and 28 uncomfortable questions regarding his sexual history and experiences, including whether he had -11COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 sex with men, how many female sexual partners he had, how many male sexual partners he had, 2 whether he used sex toys, whether he had ever used a “butt plug,” and how he met men, including 3 whether he met men on dating apps like “Tinder” saying not to use those apps because there were 4 people on them with diseases. During his questioning, Dr. Kelly used unprofessional language, 5 including using the word “pussy” and “asshole” instead of the medical names for these body parts. 6 John Doe 22 informed Dr. Kelly that he was in a monogamous relationship with a man. 7 Throughout Dr. Kelly’s questioning, he was condescending and judgmental, making Plaintiff John 8 Doe 22 feel uncomfortable and unsafe. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that 9 Dr. Kelly’s questioning and commentary were designed to shame, humiliate, and control John Doe 10 22 so that he would be silenced and so that Dr. Kelly could continue the sexual abuse and 11 discrimination of young gay and bisexual males at USC without restraint. 12 35. Despite Plaintiff John Doe 22’s lack of symptoms and the fact that John Doe 22 13 was in a monogamous relationship, Dr. Kelly insisted that John Doe 22 have a rectal examination. 14 John Doe 22 was alarmed since he was only seeking routine STD testing. Dr. Kelly then led John 15 Doe 22 to an examination room so that it was just John Doe 22 and Dr. Kelly in the room. Dr. 16 Kelly then instructed Plaintiff John Doe 22 to pull down his pants and underwear and climb onto 17 the examination table on his hands and knees. Dr. Kelly did not leave the room or turn around 18 while John Doe 22 undressed. Dr. Kelly did not provide Plaintiff John Doe 22 with any sort of 19 standard medical modesty covering, such as a robe or lap draping, making John Doe 22 feel 20 exposed and uncomfortable. 21 36. Without saying a word about the details of the examination, the process, or what to 22 expect, as John Doe 22 was on his hands and knees on the medical examination table undressed 23 from the waist down, Plaintiff John Doe 22 felt Dr. Kelly looking at his rectum and then suddenly 24 felt a sharp pain as a swab was inserted into his rectum without warning. Dr. Kelly left the swab 25 in Plaintiff John Doe 22’s rectum for approximately one minute without explaining why. 26 37. The physical examination continued for several minutes, and at no time did Dr. 27 Kelly explain what he was doing. During the examination, Dr. Kelly was silent as Plaintiff John 28 Doe 22 was splayed on his hands and knees without any drapery or covering, feeling exposed, -12COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 humiliated, and distressed. Although he did not realize it at the time, Plaintiff John Doe 22 now 2 knows that Dr. Kelly was not providing legitimate medical treatment to him but was instead 3 sexually abusing him to further his own prurient desires and/or to discriminate, shame, humiliate, 4 and embarrass him as a result of his sexual orientation and/or gender. Plaintiff John Doe 22 left 5 Dr. Kelly’s exam in tears. 6 38. Although Dr. Kelly’s purported “medical examination” caused John Doe 22 to 7 suffer embarrassment, humiliation, shame, pain, and discomfort, and in reasonable reliance upon 8 Defendant USC’s active concealment of its knowledge that Dr. Kelly was a sexual predator and 9 discriminated against men on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or gender, Plaintiff John 10 Doe 22 trusted that Dr. Kelly was in fact conducting a legitimate medical procedure due to his 11 position of authority as a physician employed by Defendant USC. Moreover, John Doe 22 had no 12 choice but to receive care from Dr. Kelly, as he was the only full-time men's sexual health 13 physician at Defendant USC's Student Health Center. 14 39. It was only after allegations regarding Dr. Kelly’s sexual misconduct and 15 discrimination became public in or around February 2019 that Plaintiff John Doe 22 realized that 16 Dr. Kelly’s treatment of him was not for a legitimate medical purpose, but was rather sexual abuse 17 committed to discriminate against him based on his sexual orientation and/or gender and/or for Dr. 18 Kelly’s own sexual gratification. 19 20 21 22 JOHN DOE 23 40. Plaintiff John Doe 23 is a male who was born in 1970 and who currently resides in San Diego, California. Plaintiff attended graduate school at USC from 1999 to 2006. 41. In or around 2003 or 2004, in order to obtain a male sexual health examination as 23 part of an ordinary medical health regimen, including standard testing for sexually transmitted 24 diseases, Plaintiff John Doe 23 made an appointment with USC’s Student Health Center. USC 25 scheduled John Doe 23 with the only male sexual health doctor on staff at USC’s Student Health 26 Center, Dr. Kelly. 27 28 42. Plaintiff John Doe 23 went to the USC Student Health Center for his appointment with Dr. Kelly and was taken by USC staff to an examination room. Dr. Kelly entered the room -13COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 so that it was just John Doe 23 and Dr. Kelly in the room. Dr. Kelly began asking John Doe 23 a 2 series of invasive and uncomfortable questions regarding his sexual history and experiences, 3 including detailed questions about the number of sex partners he had had, how he met them, and 4 what he liked to do with them, including if he was a top or a bottom. 5 43. Throughout Dr. Kelly’s questioning, he was condescending and judgmental, 6 making Plaintiff John Doe 23 feel uncomfortable, unsafe, and shamed for his sexual orientation 7 and sexual practices. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Dr. Kelly’s 8 questioning and commentary were designed to shame, humiliate, and control John Doe 23 so that 9 he would be silenced and so that Dr. Kelly could continue the sexual abuse and discrimination of 10 11 young gay and bisexual males at USC without restraint. 44. After Dr. Kelly finished asking Plaintiff John Doe 23 a series of invasive questions, 12 Dr. Kelly informed Plaintiff John Doe 23 that he would be conducting a physical examination, 13 including an examination of his genitals and a rectal examination. Plaintiff was surprised that Dr. 14 Kelly would be conducting a rectal examination, as he had never had such an examination despite 15 receiving similar testing at other facilities. 16 45. Dr. Kelly instructed Plaintiff John Doe 23 to take off his pants and underwear and 17 climb onto the examination table on his hands and knees. Dr. Kelly did not provide Plaintiff John 18 Doe 23 with any sort of standard medical modesty covering, such as a robe or lap draping, making 19 John Doe 23 feel exposed and extremely uncomfortable. 20 46. Without saying a word about the details of the examination, the process, or what to 21 expect, as John Doe 23 was on his hands and knees on the medical examination table undressed 22 from the waist down, Plaintiff John Doe 23 suddenly felt a circular device inserted into his rectum 23 without warning. At no time during the rectal examination did Dr. Kelly explain what he was 24 doing or why he was doing it. During the examination, Dr. Kelly was silent as Plaintiff John Doe 25 23 was splayed on his hands and knees without any drapery or covering, feeling exposed, 26 humiliated, and distressed. 27 28 47. After the rectal examination, Dr. Kelly conducted a genital examination. While John Doe 23 lay flat on his back, naked from the waist down, Dr. Kelly began examining and -14COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 touching John Doe 23’s genitalia with his hands for a prolonged amount of time. While Dr. Kelly 2 had John Doe 23’s genitalia in his hands, he pointed at John Doe 23’s penis and said, “What is 3 that?” Plaintiff John Doe 23 looked down at his genitalia and noticed a slight clear discharge from 4 his penis which he had never noticed prior to that moment. Because he had never noticed a 5 discharge before, John Doe 23 remained quiet. When John Doe 23 did not respond, Dr. Kelly 6 again aggressively asked, “What is that?” John Doe 23 remained silent as he had never noticed 7 the clear discharge before, and he did not know what it was. Dr. Kelly then looked at John Doe 23 8 and asked, “Is it pre cum?” Plaintiff John Doe 23 was perplexed at Dr. Kelly’s suggestion that he 9 was aroused by the examination, and he did not know how to respond. Plaintiff John Doe 23 10 immediately felt shamed, embarrassed and humiliated by Dr. Kelly’s overt sexualization of what 11 was supposed to be a standard medical procedure. 12 48. Plaintiff John Doe 23 was forced to see Dr. Kelly approximately three to four 13 additional times during his time at USC since Dr. Kelly was the only men’s sexual health doctor 14 on campus. On each occasion, Dr. Kelly performed an invasive genital examination in a 15 substantially similar manner to Plaintiff John Doe 23’s first visit. 16 49. Although Dr. Kelly’s purported “medical examination” caused John Doe 23 to 17 suffer embarrassment, humiliation, shame, pain, and discomfort, and in reasonable reliance upon 18 Defendant USC’s active concealment of its knowledge that Dr. Kelly was a sexual predator and 19 discriminated against men on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or gender, Plaintiff John 20 Doe 23 trusted that Dr. Kelly was in fact conducting a legitimate medical procedure due to his 21 position of authority as a physician employed by Defendant USC. Moreover, John Doe 23 had no 22 choice but to receive care from Dr. Kelly, as he was the only full-time men's sexual health 23 physician at Defendant USC's Student Health Center. 24 50. It was only after allegations regarding Dr. Kelly’s sexual misconduct and 25 discrimination became public in or around February 2019 that Plaintiff John Doe 23 realized that 26 Dr. Kelly’s treatment of him was not for a legitimate medical purpose, but was rather sexual abuse 27 committed to discriminate against him based on his sexual orientation and/or gender and/or for Dr. 28 Kelly’s own sexual gratification. -15COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 2 JOHN DOE 24 51. Plaintiff John Doe 24 is a male who was born in 1986 and who currently resides in 3 Los Angeles County, California. Plaintiff John Doe 24 was a graduate student at USC from 2015 4 to 2017. 5 52. In or around September 2015, in order to obtain an examination and treatment due 6 to a sore throat, Plaintiff John Doe 24 made an appointment with USC’s Student Health Center. 7 USC scheduled John Doe 24 with Dr. Kelly. 8 9 53. Plaintiff John Doe 24 went to his appointment and filled out an initial survey, which asked questions about his medical and sexual history, in which he indicated that he had 10 engaged in sexual activity with men. He was then taken by USC staff to Dr. Kelly’s examination 11 room. Dr. Kelly insisted that John Doe 24 have a physical examination, including a rectal exam. 12 John Doe 24 was confused, but trusted Dr. Kelly and relented. Dr. Kelly then instructed Plaintiff 13 John Doe 24 to undress from the waist down. Dr. Kelly did not leave the room or turn around 14 while John Doe 24 undressed. Dr. Kelly did not provide Plaintiff John Doe 24 with any sort of 15 standard medical modesty covering, such as a robe or lap draping, making John Doe 24 feel 16 exposed and uncomfortable. 17 54. Without saying a word about the details of the examination, the process, or what to 18 expect, Dr. Kelly began using his hands, feeling John Doe 24’s genitals, and then putting his 19 fingers on John Doe 24’s genitals and instructing him to cough. Dr. Kelly then paused and felt 20 John Doe 24’s penis and scrotum with his fingers and looked at his genitalia for a prolonged 21 period of time, making John Doe 24 extremely uncomfortable and distressed. 22 55. Dr. Kelly then instructed John Doe 24 to get on the examination table “on [his] 23 hands and knees.” As John Doe 24 was on his hands and knees on the medical examination table 24 facing away from Dr. Kelly and undressed from the waist down, without any warning, Plaintiff 25 John Doe 24 felt Dr. Kelly insert his lubricated finger into his anus. He then suddenly felt a sharp 26 pain as a medical device and/or swab was inserted into his rectum without warning. 27 28 56. The physical examination continued for several minutes, and at no time did Dr. Kelly explain what he was doing. During the examination, Dr. Kelly was silent as Plaintiff John -16COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 Doe 24 was splayed on his hands and knees without any drapery or covering, feeling exposed, 2 humiliated, and distressed. Although he did not realize it at the time, Plaintiff John Doe 24 now 3 knows that Dr. Kelly was not providing legitimate medical treatment to him but was instead 4 sexually abusing him to further his own prurient desires and/or to discriminate, shame, humiliate, 5 and embarrass him as a result of his sexual orientation and/or gender. 6 57. After the physical examination, Dr. Kelly then led John Doe 24 back to his private 7 office where he began asking Plaintiff John Doe 24 a series of invasive and uncomfortable 8 questions regarding his sexual history and experiences, including how he met men, and whether he 9 met men on dating apps like Grindr. John Doe 24 told Dr. Kelly that he was not using dating apps 10 but that he had used Grindr in the past, to which Dr. Kelly responded, “Well, if you’re going to be 11 doing that…” and proceeded to tell John Doe 24 that he was “promiscuous” and at “high risk.” Dr. 12 Kelly asked John Doe 24 questions about the sexual activities he engaged in using vulgar and 13 inappropriate language, including, “are you eating ass?” and “sucking dick.” Dr. Kelly’s 14 comments and questions made John Doe 24 feel ashamed, embarrassed, and unsafe. Throughout 15 Dr. Kelly’s questioning, he was condescending and judgmental. Plaintiff is informed and 16 believes and thereon alleges that Dr. Kelly’s questioning and commentary were designed to 17 shame, humiliate, and control John Doe 24 so that he would be silenced and so that Dr. Kelly 18 could continue the sexual abuse and discrimination of young gay and bisexual males at USC 19 without restraint. 20 58. Although he did not realize it at the time, Plaintiff John Doe 24 now knows that Dr. 21 Kelly was not conducting a legitimate medical examination but was instead sexually abusing him 22 to further his own prurient desires and/or to discriminate, shame, humiliate, and embarrass him as 23 a result of his sexual orientation and/or gender. 24 59. Although Dr. Kelly’s purported “medical examination” caused John Doe 24 to 25 suffer embarrassment, humiliation, shame, pain, and discomfort, and in reasonable reliance upon 26 Defendant USC’s active concealment of its knowledge that Dr. Kelly was a sexual predator and 27 discriminated against men on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or gender, Plaintiff John 28 Doe 24 trusted that Dr. Kelly was in fact conducting a legitimate medical procedure due to his -17COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 position of authority as a physician employed by Defendant USC. Moreover, John Doe 24 had no 2 choice but to receive care from Dr. Kelly, as he was the only full-time men's sexual health 3 physician at Defendant USC's Student Health Center. 4 60. It was only after allegations regarding Dr. Kelly’s sexual misconduct and 5 discrimination became public in or around February 2019 that Plaintiff John Doe 24 realized that 6 Dr. Kelly’s treatment of him was not for a legitimate medical purpose, but was rather sexual abuse 7 committed to discriminate against him based on his sexual orientation and/or gender and/or for Dr. 8 Kelly’s own sexual gratification. 9 JOHN DOE 25 10 61. Plaintiff John Doe 25 is a male who was born in 1995 and who currently resides in 11 Los Angeles County, California. At the time of filing this Complaint, Plaintiff John Doe 25 is an 12 international student studying to obtain his master’s degree at USC. 13 62. In or around December 2017, Plaintiff John Doe 25 was referred to Dr. Kelly by 14 another treater at USC related to symptoms he was experiencing pertaining to his sexual health. 15 Plaintiff John Doe 25 made an appointment with USC’s Student Health Center. 16 63. As soon as Dr. Kelly closed the door to the examination room, Plaintiff John Doe 17 25 felt very uncomfortable. Dr. Kelly began asking Plaintiff John Doe 25 a series of invasive and 18 uncomfortable questions regarding his sexual history and experiences, including whether he had 19 sex with men, how many partners he had, whether he used dating apps, whether he was a “top or a 20 bottom,” whether he used or shared sex toys, whether he watched porn and if so, how often and 21 the length of time he spent watching it, whether he used condoms, and how he met men. 22 Throughout Dr. Kelly’s questioning, he was condescending and judgmental, making Plaintiff John 23 Doe 25 feel uncomfortable, violated, unsafe, and shamed for his sexual orientation and sexual 24 practices. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Dr. Kelly’s questioning and 25 commentary were designed to shame, humiliate, and control Plaintiff John Doe 25 so that he 26 would be silenced and so that Dr. Kelly could continue the sexual abuse and discrimination of 27 young gay and bisexual males at USC without restraint. 28 \\\ -18COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 64. Dr. Kelly insisted that Plaintiff John Doe 25 have a rectal and genital examination. 2 Dr. Kelly instructed Plaintiff John Doe 25 to pull down his pants and underwear and climb onto 3 the examination table on his hands and knees. Dr. Kelly did not leave the room while Plaintiff 4 John Doe 25 undressed, and Dr. Kelly did not provide Plaintiff John Doe 25 with any sort of 5 standard medical modesty covering, such as a robe or lap draping, making Plaintiff John Doe 25 6 feel exposed and extremely uncomfortable. 7 65. Without saying a word about the details of the examination, the process, or what to 8 expect, as Plaintiff John Doe 25 was on his hands and knees on the medical examination table 9 undressed from the waist down, Plaintiff John Doe 25 felt Dr. Kelly looking at his rectum for a 10 prolonged period of time and then suddenly felt a swab inserted into his rectum without warning. 11 The swab was inserted much deeper than it had been inserted when he had been swabbed 12 previously, and the swab was inserted into his rectum for a prolonged period of time. At no time 13 during the rectal examination did Dr. Kelly explain what he was doing or why he was doing it. 14 During the examination, Dr. Kelly was silent as Plaintiff John Doe 25 was splayed on his hands 15 and knees without any drapery or covering, feeling exposed, humiliated, and distressed. 16 66. After the rectal examination, Dr. Kelly instructed Plaintiff John Doe 25 to turn over 17 and lay flat on his back on the examination table. Once Plaintiff John Doe 25 was on his back, Dr. 18 Kelly began examining and touching Plaintiff John Doe 25’s genitalia with his hands for a 19 prolonged amount of time. Dr. Kelly never explained the reason or necessity behind the genital 20 examination, making Plaintiff John Doe 25 feel extremely unnerved and uncomfortable. 21 67. Plaintiff John Doe 25 was forced to visit Dr. Kelly on two additional occasions in 22 2018 for sexual health checkups, and on at least one additional occasion Dr. Kelly insisted on 23 conducting a prolonged rectal and genital examination and asked Plaintiff John Doe 25 a series of 24 even more invasive and inappropriate personal questions, including whether his partners were 25 students on campus, whether he was into older men or “twinks,” what race his partners were, how 26 old his partners were, whether he ever shared sex toys with anyone, whether he had ever “played 27 with” anyone using “tools,” whether he had ever participated in an orgy, how long he would know 28 a person before “hooking up” with them, the specific details about sexual acts in which he -19COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 engaged, whether he had anal sex, whether he had oral sex, how often he “topped,” how often he 2 “bottomed,” what sexual positions he participated in, how he performed anal and oral sex, whether 3 he “deep throated” during oral sex, and the names of his sexual partners. Dr. Kelly also made 4 additional shaming and offensive comments including referring to men who using Grindr as 5 “disgusting” and “dangerous” and discussing what he referred to as “disappointing gay culture.” 6 These visits further made Plaintiff John Doe 25 feel judged and shamed for his sexual activity and 7 practices. 8 68. Although he did not realize it at the time, Plaintiff John Doe 25 now knows that Dr. 9 Kelly was not providing legitimate medical treatment to him but was instead sexually abusing him 10 to further his own prurient desires and/or to discriminate, shame, humiliate, and embarrass him as 11 a result of his sexual orientation and/or gender. As an international student, Plaintiff John Doe 25 12 did not know his rights or what was or was not medically proper, making him especially 13 vulnerable to Dr. Kelly’s misconduct. 14 69. Although Dr. Kelly’s purported “medical examinations” caused Plaintiff John Doe 15 25 to suffer embarrassment, humiliation, shame, pain, and discomfort, and in reasonable reliance 16 upon Defendant USC’s active concealment of its knowledge that Dr. Kelly was a sexual predator 17 and discriminated against men on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or gender, Plaintiff John 18 Doe 25 trusted that Dr. Kelly was in fact conducting a legitimate medical procedure due to his 19 position of authority as a physician employed by Defendant USC. Moreover, Plaintiff John Doe 20 25 had no choice but to receive care from Dr. Kelly, as he was the only full-time men’s sexual 21 health physician at Defendant USC’s Student Health Center. 70. 22 It was only after allegations regarding Dr. Kelly’s sexual misconduct and 23 discrimination became public in or around February 2019 that Plaintiff John Doe 25 realized that 24 Dr. Kelly’s treatment of him was not for a legitimate medical purpose but was rather sexual abuse 25 committed to discriminate against him based on his sexual orientation and/or gender and/or for Dr. 26 Kelly’s own sexual gratification. 27 \\\ 28 \\\ -20COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 2 3 4 JOHN DOE 26 71. Plaintiff John Doe 26 is a male who was born in 1993 and who currently resides in Pennsylvania. Plaintiff John Doe 26 was an undergraduate student at USC from 2012 to 2015. 72. In or around November 2013, in order to obtain a male sexual health examination 5 as part of an ordinary medical health regimen, including testing for sexually transmitted diseases, 6 Plaintiff John Doe 26 made an appointment with USC’s Student Health Center. USC scheduled 7 John Doe 26 with the only male sexual health doctor on staff at USC’s Student Health Center, Dr. 8 Kelly. This was one of John Doe 26’s first male sexual health screenings. 9 73. Plaintiff John Doe 26 went to his appointment and was taken by USC staff to Dr. 10 Kelly’s exam room. Dr. Kelly asked Plaintiff John Doe 26 a question or two, but then instructed 11 Plaintiff John Doe 26 to follow him to his private office. Once in Dr. Kelly’s private office, Dr. 12 Kelly proceeded to ask Plaintiff John Doe 26 a series of invasive and uncomfortable questions 13 regarding his sexual history and experiences for approximately 30 minutes, including whether he 14 had sex with men, how many male sexual partners he had, whether he used sex toys, whether he 15 shared sex toys with partners, whether he had ever been paid for sex, whether he ever paid anyone 16 for sex, whether he had ever been sexually abused or in an abusive romantic relationship, what 17 sexual positions he had performed, and the percentage breakdown of how often he performed each 18 sexual position. Plaintiff John Doe 26 gave short answers, not hiding the fact that he was 19 displeased with the questions Dr. Kelly was asking. Dr. Kelly acknowledged John Doe 26’s 20 displeasure but made no effort to address it. Dr. Kelly instead persisted, asking Plaintiff John Doe 21 26 how often he watched pornography, to which Plaintiff John Doe 26 responded that he had 22 never really thought about how much pornography he watched. Dr. Kelly responded, “Well, just 23 so you know the average is about one hour a week.” Dr. Kelly then proceeded to ask John Doe 26 24 how he met men, including whether he met men using dating apps like “Grindr.” Plaintiff John 25 Doe 26 informed Dr. Kelly that he had never been asked this question before and provided a terse 26 response. During his questioning, Dr. Kelly used unprofessional language. Throughout Dr. 27 Kelly’s questioning, he was condescending and judgmental, making Plaintiff John Doe 26 feel 28 uncomfortable and vulnerable. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Dr. -21COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 Kelly’s questioning and commentary were designed to shame, humiliate, and control John Doe 26 2 so that he would be silenced and so that Dr. Kelly could continue the sexual abuse and 3 discrimination of young gay and bisexual males at USC without restraint. 4 74. Despite Plaintiff John Doe 26’s lack of symptoms and Plaintiff John Doe 26’s 5 sexual inexperience, Dr. Kelly instructed John Doe 26 to follow him back to his exam room for a 6 physical examination, including a rectal examination, saying, “I want to run a few tests on you.” 7 John Doe 26 was alarmed since he was only seeking routine STD testing and had never 8 participated in analingus and never had unprotected anal receptive sex. Dr. Kelly then led John 9 Doe 26 to an examination room so that it was just John Doe 26 and Dr. Kelly in the room. Dr. 10 Kelly then instructed Plaintiff John Doe 26 to undress from the waist down. Dr. Kelly did not 11 leave the room or turn around while John Doe 26 undressed. Dr. Kelly did not provide Plaintiff 12 John Doe 26 with any sort of standard medical modesty covering, such as a robe or lap draping, 13 making John Doe 26 feel exposed and uncomfortable. Dr. Kelly stood in front of John Doe 26 as 14 he undressed. 15 75. Without saying a word about the details of the examination, the process, or what to 16 expect, Dr. Kelly sat in a chair in front of John Doe 26 and began using his hands to inspect John 17 Doe 26’s penis and groin area, looking at his genitalia for a prolonged period of time. Dr. Kelly 18 did not swab John Doe 26’s genitals or take any sample. 76. 19 Dr. Kelly then instructed John Doe 26 to turn around and get on top of the 20 examination table “on all fours.” As John Doe 26 was on his hands and knees on the medical 21 examination table facing the wall and with his buttocks facing Dr. Kelly, undressed from the waist 22 down, Plaintiff John Doe 26 felt Dr. Kelly looking at his rectum and then suddenly felt a sharp 23 pain as a swab was inserted into his rectum without warning. Dr. Kelly left the swab in Plaintiff 24 John Doe 26’s rectum for approximately one minute or more without explaining why. With Dr. 25 Kelly behind him and Plaintiff John Doe 26 facing the wall with the swab left in his rectum, 26 Plaintiff John Doe 26 wondered what Dr. Kelly was doing since it was taking so long, and Dr. 27 Kelly did not explain what he was doing. 28 \\\ -22COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 77. The physical examination continued for several minutes, and at no time did Dr. 2 Kelly explain what he was doing. During the examination, Dr. Kelly was silent as Plaintiff John 3 Doe 26 was splayed on his hands and knees without any drapery or covering, feeling exposed, 4 humiliated, and distressed. Although he did not realize it at the time, Plaintiff John Doe 26 now 5 knows that Dr. Kelly was not providing legitimate medical treatment to him but was instead 6 sexually abusing him to further his own prurient desires and/or to discriminate, shame, humiliate, 7 and embarrass him as a result of his sexual orientation and/or gender. Plaintiff John Doe 26 left 8 Dr. Kelly’s exam and called his mother in tears. 9 78. Although Dr. Kelly’s purported “medical examination” caused John Doe 26 to 10 suffer embarrassment, humiliation, shame, pain, and discomfort, and in reasonable reliance upon 11 Defendant USC’s active concealment of its knowledge that Dr. Kelly was a sexual predator and 12 discriminated against men on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or gender, Plaintiff John 13 Doe 26 trusted that Dr. Kelly was in fact conducting a legitimate medical procedure due to his 14 position of authority as a physician employed by Defendant USC. Moreover, John Doe 26 had no 15 choice but to receive care from Dr. Kelly, as he was the only full-time men's sexual health 16 physician at Defendant USC's Student Health Center. 17 18 79. Plaintiff John Doe 26 felt so confused and uncomfortable from his experience with Dr. Kelly that he became fearful of seeking regular sexual health examinations thereafter. 80. 19 It was only after allegations regarding Dr. Kelly’s sexual misconduct and 20 discrimination became public in or around February 2019 that Plaintiff John Doe 26 realized that 21 Dr. Kelly’s treatment of him was not for a legitimate medical purpose, but was rather sexual abuse 22 committed to discriminate against him based on his sexual orientation and/or gender and/or for Dr. 23 Kelly’s own sexual gratification. 24 JOHN DOE 27 25 81. Plaintiff John Doe 27 is a male who was born in 1996 and who currently resides in 26 Los Angeles County, California. At the time of filing this Complaint, Plaintiff John Doe 27 is an 27 undergraduate student at USC. 28 \\\ -23COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 82. In or around November 2017, the day after he had an appointment and screening 2 for sexually transmitted diseases, Plaintiff John Doe 27 was referred to Dr. Kelly by another 3 treater at USC who recommended John Doe 27 see Dr. Kelly because John Doe 27 identified as a 4 gay man. 5 83. Plaintiff John Doe 27 went to his appointment and was taken by USC staff to Dr. 6 Kelly’s private office. Dr. Kelly began asking Plaintiff John Doe 27 a series of invasive and 7 uncomfortable questions regarding his sexual history and experiences, including whether he had 8 sex with men, how many male sexual partners he had, whether he had been paid for sex, whether 9 he used sex toys, what sexual activities he had participated in, and how he met his sexual partners, 10 including whether he met them online. When John Doe 27 said he met a partner online, Dr. Kelly 11 responded, “That’s not very smart. You shouldn’t engage in sexual activity with someone you 12 met online.” Dr. Kelly then asked John Doe 27 what sexual activities he had participated in with 13 the partner he met online. When John Doe 27 said, “Oral,” Dr. Kelly responded, “Is that the most 14 you did?” John Doe 27 said, “Yes,” to which Dr. Kelly responded, “Can I ask you a personal 15 question, why?” and then asked, “Why stop there?” suggesting he should “live a little.” Dr. Kelly 16 proceeded to suggest that he thought John Doe 27 would enjoy doing more. Dr. Kelly’s 17 unprofessional questions and comments made John Doe 27 feel humiliated, confused, and judged. 18 Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Dr. Kelly’s questioning and 19 commentary were designed to shame, humiliate, and control John Doe 27 so that he would be 20 silenced and so that Dr. Kelly could continue the sexual abuse and discrimination of young gay 21 and bisexual males at USC without restraint. 22 84. Despite Plaintiff John Doe 27’s lack of concerns, the fact that John Doe 27 had 23 never had anal sex, and the fact that John Doe 27 had just been screened for STDs the day before 24 his visit with Dr. Kelly, Dr. Kelly insisted that John Doe 27 submit to a rectal examination. John 25 Doe 27 was alarmed and confused. John Doe 27 expressed his discomfort with the recommended 26 rectal examination, saying he did not think it was necessary, explaining again that he had never 27 had anal sex. Dr. Kelly responded, “But you’ve been fingered, right?” insisting that he should do 28 the rectal examination even if John Doe 27 had never been anally receptive. Dr. Kelly led John -24COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 Doe 27 to an examination room so that it was just John Doe 27 and Dr. Kelly in the room. Dr. 2 Kelly then instructed Plaintiff John Doe 27 to undress from the waist down. Dr. Kelly did not 3 leave the room or turn around while John Doe 27 undressed. Dr. Kelly did not provide Plaintiff 4 John Doe 27 with any sort of standard medical modesty covering, such as a robe or lap draping, 5 making John Doe 27 feel exposed and uncomfortable. 6 85. Without saying a word about the details of the examination, the process, or what to 7 expect, Dr. Kelly began using his hands, feeling John Doe 27’s penis and scrotum with his fingers, 8 and looking at his genitalia for a prolonged period of time, making John Doe 27 extremely 9 uncomfortable and distressed. 10 86. Dr. Kelly then instructed John Doe 27 to get on the examination table “on all 11 fours.” While John Doe 27 was on the examination table on his hands and knees, Dr. Kelly told 12 John Doe 27 to lift his buttocks higher and to “arch his back.” Without saying a word about the 13 details of the examination, the process, or what to expect, as John Doe 27 was on his hands and 14 knees on the medical examination table undressed from the waist down, Plaintiff John Doe 27 felt 15 Dr. Kelly looking at his rectum and then suddenly felt a sharp pain as a swab was inserted into his 16 rectum without warning. Dr. Kelly left the swab in Plaintiff John Doe 27’s rectum for 17 approximately one minute without explaining why. 18 87. The physical examination continued for several minutes, and at no time did Dr. 19 Kelly explain what he was doing. During the examination, Dr. Kelly was silent as Plaintiff John 20 Doe 27 was splayed on his hands and knees without any drapery or covering, feeling exposed, 21 humiliated, and distressed. Although he did not realize it at the time, Plaintiff John Doe 27 now 22 knows that Dr. Kelly was not providing legitimate medical treatment to him but was instead 23 sexually abusing him to further his own prurient desires and/or to discriminate, shame, humiliate, 24 and embarrass him as a result of his sexual orientation and/or gender. Plaintiff John Doe 27 left 25 Dr. Kelly’s exam in tears as he proceeded to get his blood drawn at the lab. 26 88. Plaintiff John Doe 27 saw Dr. Kelly at Defendant USC’s Student Health Center 27 months later for another routine exam, presenting without complaints or symptoms, and again 28 having never participated in anal sex. During this visit, Dr. Kelly again instructed John Doe 27 to -25COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 undress in front of him without offering any privacy or covering, instructed him to get on “all 2 fours” on the examination table, and conducted a rectal examination. 3 89. Although Dr. Kelly’s purported “medical examinations” caused John Doe 27 to 4 suffer embarrassment, humiliation, shame, pain, and discomfort, and in reasonable reliance upon 5 Defendant USC’s active concealment of its knowledge that Dr, Kelly was a sexual predator and 6 discriminated against men on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or gender, Plaintiff John 7 Doe 27 trusted that Dr. Kelly was in fact conducting a legitimate medical procedure due to his 8 position of authority as a physician employed by Defendant USC. Moreover, John Doe 27 had no 9 choice but to receive sexual health care from Dr. Kelly, as he was the only full-time men's sexual 10 11 health physician at Defendant USC's Student Health Center. 90. It was only after allegations regarding Dr. Kelly’s sexual misconduct and 12 discrimination became public in or around February 2019 that Plaintiff John Doe 27 realized that 13 Dr. Kelly’s treatment of him was not for a legitimate medical purpose, but was rather sexual abuse 14 committed to discriminate against him based on his sexual orientation and/or gender and/or for Dr. 15 Kelly’s own sexual gratification. 16 17 JOHN DOE 28 91. Plaintiff John Doe 28 is a male who was born in 1997 and who currently resides in 18 Los Angeles County, California. At the time of filing this Complaint, Plaintiff John Doe 28 is an 19 undergraduate student at USC. 20 92. In or around Spring of 2017, John Doe 28 made an appointment with USC’s 21 Student Health Center as part of an ordinary medical health regimen, including testing for sexually 22 transmitted diseases. USC scheduled John Doe 28 with Dr. Dennis Kelly, the only men’s health 23 doctor at USC’s Student Health Center. This was Plaintiff’s first appointment with a men’s sexual 24 health physician, as he had not been sexually active prior to attending USC. At the time of the 25 appointment, he had no symptoms or concerns and was not sexually active. He had only had 26 sexual intercourse with one partner at the time of his initial visit. 27 28 93. John Doe 28 was taken by USC staff to Dr. Kelly’s private office where Dr. Kelly began asking Plaintiff John Doe 28 a series of invasive questions regarding his sexual history and -26COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 experiences, including whether he used “hook-up apps,” whether he had sex with men, how many 2 partners he had, whether he had “topped or bottomed,” and whether he had put his fingers or other 3 objects into his rectum, making John Doe 28 feel extremely uncomfortable. Throughout his 4 questioning, Dr. Kelly excessively praised Plaintiff John Doe 28 for not being sexually active, 5 making John Doe 28 feel worried and confused as to whether he should engage in sexual activity 6 or whether he should abstain based on Dr. Kelly’s scare tactics. 7 94. Despite Plaintiff John Doe 28’s lack of symptoms and lack of sexual activity, Dr. 8 Kelly informed Plaintiff that he would be conducting a physical examination. Dr. Kelly then led 9 John Doe 28 to an examination room so that it was just John Doe 28 and Dr. Kelly in the room. 10 Dr. Kelly instructed Plaintiff John Doe 28 to pull down his pants and underwear and lay flat on his 11 back on the examination table. Dr. Kelly did not provide Plaintiff John Doe 28 with any sort of 12 standard medical modesty covering, such as a robe or lap draping, and John Doe 28 did not feel 13 like he could ask for privacy, making John Doe 28 feel exposed and uncomfortable. 14 95. Once John Doe 28 was on his back, Dr. Kelly began examining and touching John 15 Doe 28’s genitalia with his hands for a prolonged amount of time. Dr. Kelly claimed that he was 16 looking for “warts,” but John Does was not sexually active and had no symptoms or concerns in 17 which a genital examination would have been necessary. Dr. Kelly suggested a rectal examination 18 as well, but John Doe 28 refused. 19 96. Plaintiff went back for a second appointment in the Fall of 2017 and a third 20 appointment in January of 2018 as part of his continued health regimen. At those appointments, 21 Dr. Kelly engaged in similar invasive questioning, and conducted lengthy genital examinations 22 despite Plaintiff John Doe 28’s lack of symptoms or sexual activity. 23 97. In or around May 2018, Plaintiff John Doe 28 returned to the USC Student Health 24 Center in order to obtain a prescription for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) medication. Plaintiff 25 John Doe 28 was once again scheduled with Dr. Kelly who was the only doctor on staff at USC’s 26 Student Health Center who could prescribe PrEP. 27 28 98. Plaintiff John Doe 28 was taken to Dr. Kelly’s private office, where it was just John Doe 28 and Dr. Kelly. Dr. Kelly discouraged Plaintiff John Doe 28 from obtaining PrEP and told -27COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 him that it did not give him a “free pass,” making John Doe 28 feel uncomfortable and 2 embarrassed. Dr. Kelly then engaged in extensive invasive questioning and informed John Doe 28 3 that he would need to have a full panel of tests, including a rectal examination, in order to get 4 PrEP. Dr. Kelly led John Doe 28 to an examination room so that it was just John Doe 28 and Dr. 5 Kelly in the room. Dr. Kelly instructed Plaintiff John Doe 28 to pull down his pants and 6 underwear and climb onto the examination table on his hands and knees. Dr. Kelly did not 7 provide Plaintiff John Doe 28 with any sort of standard medical modesty covering, such as a robe 8 or lap draping, and John Doe 28 did not feel like he could ask for privacy, making John Doe 28 9 feel exposed and uncomfortable. 10 99. Without providing any explicit details about the examination, as John Doe 28 was 11 on his hands and knees on the medical examination table undressed from the waist down, Plaintiff 12 John Doe 28 suddenly felt a swab or other object inserted into his rectum without warning. 13 During the examination, Dr. Kelly was silent as Plaintiff John Doe 28 was splayed on his hands 14 and knees without any drapery or covering, feeling exposed, humiliated, and distressed. However, 15 because Plaintiff John Doe 28 had never been to any other men’s sexual health doctor prior to Dr. 16 Kelly, he assumed that Dr. Kelly’s examination was standard practice and required. 17 100. Also during that appointment, Dr. Kelly conducted another genital examination 18 where he touched John Doe 28’s genitalia with his hands for a prolonged amount of time, making 19 John Doe 28 feel extremely uncomfortable. 20 101. In or around August 2018, Plaintiff John Doe 28 made another appointment with 21 the USC Student Health Center for routine testing for sexually transmitted infections. At that 22 time, USC scheduled him with Dr. Lisa Richardson, as Dr. Kelly was no longer working at USC. 23 At the appointment, Dr. Richardson handed Plaintiff John Doe 28 a rectal swab and basically said, 24 “you know what to do.” Alarmed, Plaintiff John Doe 28 asked whether he was supposed to swab 25 himself, and he informed Dr. Richardson that when he saw Dr. Kelly, Dr. Kelly performed a rectal 26 examination and swab. Dr. Richardson seemed confused that Dr. Kelly performed the rectal 27 examination rather than having Plaintiff John Doe 28 swab himself. Plaintiff John Doe 28 asked 28 Dr. Richardson whether swabbing himself was the correct procedure, and she informed him that it -28COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 was. Plaintiff has returned to USC Student Health Center for additional men’s health 2 appointments since his appointment with Dr. Richardson, and at no time did he receive another 3 rectal examination from any of the USC physicians. 4 102. Although he did not realize it at the time, Plaintiff John Doe 28 now knows that Dr. 5 Kelly was not providing legitimate medical treatment to him but was instead sexually abusing him 6 to further his own prurient desires and/or to discriminate, shame, humiliate, and embarrass him as 7 a result of his sexual orientation and/or gender. 8 103. Although Dr. Kelly’s purported “medical examination” caused John Doe 28 to 9 suffer embarrassment, humiliation, shame, pain, and discomfort, and in reasonable reliance upon 10 Defendant USC’s active concealment of its knowledge that Dr. Kelly was a sexual predator and 11 discriminated against men on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or gender, Plaintiff John 12 Doe 28 trusted that Dr. Kelly was in fact conducting a legitimate medical procedure due to his 13 position of authority as a physician employed by Defendant USC. Moreover, John Doe 28 had no 14 choice but to receive care from Dr. Kelly, as he was the only full-time men’s sexual health 15 physician at Defendant USC’s Student Health Center. 16 104. It was only after allegations regarding Dr. Kelly’s sexual misconduct and 17 discrimination became public in or around February 2019 that John Doe 28 realized that Dr. 18 Kelly’s treatment of him was not for a legitimate medical purpose but was rather sexual abuse 19 committed to discriminate against him based on his sexual orientation and/or gender and/or for Dr. 20 Kelly’s own sexual gratification. 21 22 23 24 JOHN DOE 29 105. Plaintiff John Doe 29 is a male who was born in 1987 and currently resides in Oregon. Plaintiff John Doe 29 was a PhD student at USC from on or around 2011 to 2017. 106. In or around 2016, in order to obtain a male sexual health examination as part of an 25 ordinary medical health regimen, including testing for sexually transmitted diseases, Plaintiff John 26 Doe 29 made an appointment with USC’s Student Health Center. Plaintiff John Doe 29 identifies 27 as bisexual and at the time, had limited sexual experiences with men. He made an appointment in 28 order to obtain information about getting a prescription for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and -29COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 to discuss his health options. USC scheduled John Doe 29 with the only male sexual health doctor 2 on staff at USC’s Student Health Center, Dr. Kelly. 3 107. John Doe 29 was taken by USC staff to Dr. Kelly’s private office where it was just 4 Dr. Kelly and John Doe 29 in the room. Dr. Kelly began asking Plaintiff John Doe 29 a series of 5 invasive and uncomfortable questions regarding his sexual history and experiences, including the 6 manner in which Plaintiff John Doe 29 met men, whether he used dating apps such as “Grindr,” 7 and whether he had “eaten ass,” “sucked dick,” or “ate pussy.” Dr. Kelly also asked for detailed, 8 pornographic descriptions of his encounters with men. When Plaintiff John Doe 29 provided 9 general answers to Dr. Kelly’s questions, it was not enough, and he pushed for further detailed 10 information. Throughout Dr. Kelly’s questioning, he was prying, condescending, and judgmental, 11 making Plaintiff John Doe 29 feel uncomfortable, shamed, and unsafe. Because Plaintiff had not 12 previously seen a men’s health physician since he began having sexual encounters with men, 13 Plaintiff assumed that Dr. Kelly’s conduct was medically necessary despite his significant 14 discomfort. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Dr. Kelly’s questioning and 15 commentary were designed to shame, humiliate, and control John Doe 29 so that he would be 16 silenced and so that Dr. Kelly could continue the sexual abuse and discrimination of young males 17 at USC without restraint. 18 108. At the end of the initial appointment, Dr. Kelly informed Plaintiff John Doe 29 that 19 if he wanted a prescription for PrEP, he would have to return to see him 2-3 more times so that Dr. 20 Kelly could run a series of tests. In or around 2017, Plaintiff John Doe 29 returned for a second 21 appointment, He was taken to an examination room where it was just Dr. Kelly and John Doe 29. 22 Dr. Kelly once again began asking inappropriate and invasive questions, making John Doe 29 23 again feel uncomfortable and unsafe. 24 109. Dr. Kelly then performed a throat swab on Plaintiff John Doe 29 to test for sexually 25 transmitted diseases. When Dr. Kelly swabbed the back of Plaintiff’s throat, Plaintiff gagged, to 26 which Dr. Kelly made the demeaning and humiliating comment: “You have had bigger things in 27 there, why are you gagging?” Plaintiff was embarrassed and ashamed by Dr. Kelly’s comment 28 and felt extremely uncomfortable. Despite Plaintiff John Doe 29’s lack of symptoms and lack of -30COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 concerns regarding his sexual health, and despite never having receptive anal intercourse, Dr. 2 Kelly then insisted that John Doe 29 also have a rectal examination. John Doe 29 was alarmed 3 that Dr. Kelly was insisting on such examinations, but he complied since Dr. Kelly represented 4 that the examination was standard and necessary. 5 110. Dr. Kelly instructed Plaintiff John Doe 29 to pull down his pants and underwear. 6 Dr. Kelly did not leave the room or turn around while Plaintiff John Doe 29 undressed. Dr. Kelly 7 did not provide Plaintiff John Doe 29 with any sort of standard medical modesty covering, such as 8 a robe or lap draping, and John Doe 29 did not feel like he could ask for privacy, making John 9 Doe 29 feel exposed and uncomfortable. Dr. Kelly then instructed Plaintiff John Doe 29 to climb 10 onto the examination table on his hands and knees. Without saying a word about the details of the 11 examination, the process, or what to expect, as John Doe 29 was on his hands and knees on the 12 medical examination table undressed from the waist down, Plaintiff John Doe 29 suddenly felt Dr. 13 Kelly insert his fingers into his rectum without warning and began moving them around. Dr. 14 Kelly did not explain what he was doing during the examination or why he was doing it. Instead, 15 while his fingers were inserted into Plaintiff John Doe 29’s rectum, Dr. Kelly commented that 16 Plaintiff’s prostate felt “a bit swollen,” that he was “tender,” and that he was “tight and needed to 17 loosen up and relax.” Dr. Kelly then inserted a rectal swab into Plaintiff’s rectum without 18 warning. During the examination, Plaintiff John Doe 29 was splayed on his hands and knees 19 without any drapery or covering, feeling exposed, humiliated, and distressed. 20 111. Plaintiff John Doe 29 returned to Dr. Kelly on approximately 2-3 more occasions in 21 2017, and on each occasion, Dr. Kelly asked similarly invasive questions and insisted on 22 performing a rectal examination. Although he did not realize it at the time, Plaintiff John Doe 29 23 now knows that Dr. Kelly was not providing legitimate medical treatment to him but was instead 24 sexually abusing him to further his own prurient desires and/or to discriminate, shame, humiliate, 25 and embarrass him as a result of sexual orientation and/or gender. 26 112. Although Dr. Kelly’s purported “medical examination” caused John Doe 29 to 27 suffer embarrassment, humiliation, shame, pain, and discomfort, and in reasonable reliance upon 28 Defendant USC’s active concealment of its knowledge that Dr. Kelly was a sexual predator and -31COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 discriminated against men on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or gender, Plaintiff John 2 Doe 29 trusted that Dr. Kelly was in fact conducting a legitimate medical procedure due to his 3 position of authority as a physician employed by Defendant USC. Moreover, John Doe 29 had no 4 choice but to receive care from Dr. Kelly, as he was the only full-time men’s sexual health 5 physician at Defendant USC’s Student Health Center. 6 113. It was only after allegations regarding Dr. Kelly’s sexual misconduct and 7 discrimination became public in or around February 2019 that John Doe 29 realized that Dr. 8 Kelly’s treatment of him was not for a legitimate medical purpose but was rather sexual abuse 9 committed to discriminate against him based on sexual orientation and/or gender and/or for Dr. 10 Kelly’s own sexual gratification. 11 12 JOHN DOE 30 114. Plaintiff John Doe 30 is a male who was born in 1991 and who currently resides in 13 Los Angeles County, California. At the time of his visit with Dr. Kelly, Plaintiff John Doe 30 was 14 an undergraduate student at USC. 15 115. In or around January 2011, in order to obtain an examination related to 16 dermatological symptoms Plaintiff John Doe 30 was experiencing on his penis, Plaintiff John Doe 17 30 made an appointment with USC’s Student Health Center. USC scheduled John Doe 30 with 18 Dr. Lisa Richardson, who diagnosed Plaintiff John Doe 30 with dermatitis, but referred John Doe 19 30 to Dr. Kelly for a second opinion. 20 116. Plaintiff John Doe 30 scheduled his follow up visit with Dr. Kelly in or around 21 January 2011. Plaintiff John Doe 30 went to his appointment and was taken by USC staff to Dr. 22 Kelly’s exam room. Dr. Kelly began asking Plaintiff John Doe 30 a series of invasive and 23 uncomfortable questions regarding his sexual history and experiences, including whether he had 24 sex with men, whether he had ever been paid for sex or paid someone for sex, whether he 25 identifies as gay, whether he uses sex toys, and whether he was a “top or a bottom.” John Doe 30 26 informed Dr. Kelly that he was in a relationship and that he was a “top.” Throughout Dr. Kelly’s 27 questioning, he was condescending and judgmental, making Plaintiff John Doe 30 feel 28 uncomfortable and unsafe. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Dr. Kelly’s -32COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 questioning and commentary were designed to shame, humiliate, and control John Doe 30 so that 2 he would be silenced and so that Dr. Kelly could continue the sexual abuse and discrimination of 3 young gay and bisexual males at USC without restraint. 4 117. Despite Dr. Kelly not being concerned about Plaintiff John Doe 30’s 5 dermatological symptoms, and despite Plaintiff John Doe 30’s lack of other symptoms or concerns 6 and the fact that John Doe 30 was not the receptive partner in his relationship, Dr. Kelly insisted 7 that John Doe 30 have a rectal examination. Dr. Kelly instructed Plaintiff John Doe 30 to pull 8 down his pants and underwear and climb onto the examination table on his hands and knees. Dr. 9 Kelly did not leave the room or turn around while John Doe 30 undressed. Dr. Kelly did not 10 provide Plaintiff John Doe 30 with any sort of standard medical modesty covering, such as a robe 11 or lap draping, making John Doe 30 feel exposed and uncomfortable. 12 118. Without saying a word about the details of the examination, the process, or what to 13 expect, as John Doe 30 was on his hands and knees on the medical examination table undressed 14 from the waist down, Plaintiff John Doe 30 felt Dr. Kelly looking at his rectum and then suddenly 15 felt a metal medical device was inserted into his rectum without warning. Dr. Kelly left the device 16 in Plaintiff John Doe 30’s rectum for a prolonged period of time. 17 119. The physical examination continued for several minutes, and at no time did Dr. 18 Kelly explain what he was doing. During the examination, Dr. Kelly was silent as Plaintiff John 19 Doe 30 was splayed on his hands and knees without any drapery or covering, feeling exposed, 20 humiliated, and distressed. Although he did not realize it at the time, Plaintiff John Doe 30 now 21 knows that Dr. Kelly was not providing legitimate medical treatment to him but was instead 22 sexually abusing him to further his own prurient desires and/or to discriminate, shame, humiliate, 23 and embarrass him as a result of his sexual orientation and/or gender. 24 120. Although Dr. Kelly’s purported “medical examination” caused John Doe 30 to 25 suffer embarrassment, humiliation, shame, and discomfort, and in reasonable reliance upon 26 Defendant USC’s active concealment of its knowledge that Dr. Kelly was a sexual predator and 27 discriminated against men on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or gender, Plaintiff John 28 Doe 30 trusted that Dr. Kelly was in fact conducting a legitimate medical procedure due to his -33COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 position of authority as a physician employed by Defendant USC. Moreover, John Doe 30 had no 2 choice but to receive care from Dr. Kelly, as he was the only full-time men's sexual health 3 physician at Defendant USC's Student Health Center. 4 121. It was only after allegations regarding Dr. Kelly’s sexual misconduct and 5 discrimination became public in or around February 2019 that Plaintiff John Doe 30 realized that 6 Dr. Kelly’s treatment of him was not for a legitimate medical purpose, but was rather sexual abuse 7 committed to discriminate against him based on his sexual orientation and/or gender and/or for Dr. 8 Kelly’s own sexual gratification. 9 10 JOHN DOE 31 122. Plaintiff John Doe 31 is a male who was born in 1997 and who currently resides in 11 Los Angeles County, California. At the time of filing this Complaint, Plaintiff John Doe 31 is an 12 undergraduate student at USC. 13 123. In or around April 2018, in order to obtain a male sexual health examination as part 14 of an ordinary medical health regimen, Plaintiff John Doe 31 made an appointment with USC’s 15 Student Health Center. USC scheduled John Doe 31 with the only male sexual health doctor on 16 staff at USC’s Student Health Center, Dr. Kelly, even though he had previously received a routine 17 sexual health examination and STD testing from another physician at the Student Health Center. 18 124. Plaintiff John Doe 31 went to his appointment and was taken by USC staff to Dr. 19 Kelly’s private office. Dr. Kelly began asking Plaintiff John Doe 31 a series of invasive and 20 uncomfortable questions regarding his sexual history and experiences, including whether he had 21 sex with men, whether he had ever been paid for sex or paid someone for sex, and whether he was 22 a “top or a bottom.” John Doe 31 informed Dr. Kelly that he had participated in sexual activities 23 with men, but that all instances of anal receptivity had been with protection. Dr. Kelly then asked 24 how he met men, including whether he met men online or on dating apps like “Grindr” and 25 “Tinder.” Plaintiff John Doe 31 responded that he had a “Tinder” profile, to which Dr. Kelly 26 responded that he shouldn’t be, that “there is a huge outbreak of Syphilis at USC. Are you aware 27 of it?” To which John Doe 31 said he was not aware. Dr. Kelly then commented, “Well, all of the 28 -34COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 patients I’ve met with that are part of this outbreak say they are using these apps too.” Dr. Kelly’s 2 comments made John Doe 31 feel frightened, ashamed, embarrassed, and unsafe. 3 125. Throughout Dr. Kelly’s questioning, he was condescending and judgmental, 4 making Plaintiff John Doe 31 feel uncomfortable and unsafe. However, Dr. Kelly kept saying “I 5 lead the men’s health practice here at USC” and so Plaintiff John Doe 31 did not feel he could or 6 should push back. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Dr. Kelly’s 7 questioning and commentary were designed to shame, humiliate, and control John Doe 31 so that 8 he would be silenced and so that Dr. Kelly could continue the sexual abuse and discrimination of 9 young gay and bisexual males at USC without restraint. 10 126. Despite Plaintiff John Doe 31’s lack of symptoms or complaints, Dr. Kelly insisted 11 that John Doe 31 have a full STD screening, including a physical examination. When John Doe 12 31 asked how much it cost – explaining that he also had health insurance through Kaiser and could 13 seek a full STD screening and physical exam there – Dr. Kelly responded that it would cost 14 approximately $80. Feeling uncomfortable both with how the visit had gone thus far and with the 15 cost of the proposed examination, John Doe 31 declined the full STD screening and physical 16 examination explaining that he would go ahead and set up an appointment through Kaiser. He 17 thanked Dr. Kelly for his time. Even though it was clear that John Doe 31 would be seeking a 18 routine STD screening through Kaiser, and even though John Doe 31 declined testing through Dr. 19 Kelly, Dr. Kelly reminded John Doe 31 again that he was the head of men’s health at USC’s 20 Student Health Center and insisted that because Plaintiff John Doe 31 was already in his office, 21 that John Doe 31 submit to a physical examination. Due to Dr. Kelly’s insistence, John Doe 31 22 relented. 23 127. Dr. Kelly then led John Doe 31 to an examination room so that it was just John Doe 24 31 and Dr. Kelly in the room. Dr. Kelly then instructed Plaintiff John Doe 31 to pull down his 25 pants and underwear and climb onto the examination table and lay flat on his back. Dr. Kelly did 26 not leave the room or turn around while John Doe 31 undressed. Dr. Kelly did not provide 27 Plaintiff John Doe 31 with any sort of standard medical modesty covering, such as a robe or lap 28 -35COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 draping, and John Doe 31 did not feel like he could ask for privacy, making John Doe 31 feel 2 exposed and uncomfortable. 3 128. Without saying a word about the details of the examination, the process, or what to 4 expect, as John Doe 31 was laying on his back undressed from the waist down, Dr. Kelly began 5 examining and touching John Doe 31’s genitalia with his hands for a prolonged amount of time. 6 Dr. Kelly never explained what he was doing during the genital examination, making John Doe 31 7 feel extremely uncomfortable. Dr. Kelly then instructed John Doe 31 to turn around and get on his 8 forearms and knees on the medical examination table. Plaintiff John Doe 31 could not see Dr. 9 Kelly while he was undressed from the waist down and on his hands and knees facing the wall but 10 11 felt Dr. Kelly using his hands to touch and look at his anus. 129. The physical examination continued for approximately five minutes, and at no time 12 did Dr. Kelly explain what he was doing, what he was looking for, or what to expect, despite 13 asking questions and talking almost non-stop in his private office. During the examination, Dr. 14 Kelly was silent as Plaintiff John Doe 31 was splayed on his hands and knees without any drapery 15 or covering, feeling exposed, humiliated, and distressed. Although he did not realize it at the time, 16 Plaintiff John Doe 31 now knows that Dr. Kelly was not providing legitimate medical treatment to 17 him but was instead sexually abusing him to further his own prurient desires and/or to 18 discriminate, shame, humiliate, and embarrass him as a result of his sexual orientation and/or 19 gender. 20 130. Although Dr. Kelly’s purported “medical examination” caused John Doe 31 to 21 suffer embarrassment, humiliation, shame, pain, and discomfort, and in reasonable reliance upon 22 Defendant USC’s active concealment of its knowledge that Dr. Kelly was a sexual predator and 23 discriminated against men on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or gender, Plaintiff John 24 Doe 31 trusted that Dr. Kelly was in fact conducting a legitimate medical procedure due to his 25 position of authority as a physician employed by Defendant USC. 26 131. Plaintiff John Doe 31 felt confused and uncomfortable from his experience with Dr. 27 Kelly in April 2018 and avoided USC’s Student Health Center for sexual health examinations, 28 until Dr. Kelly had resigned in or around August 2018. -36COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 132. It was only after allegations regarding Dr. Kelly’s sexual misconduct and 2 discrimination became public in or around February 2019 that Plaintiff John Doe 31 realized that 3 Dr. Kelly’s treatment of him was not for a legitimate medical purpose, but was rather sexual abuse 4 committed to discriminate against him based on his sexual orientation and/or gender and/or for Dr. 5 Kelly’s own sexual gratification. 6 7 JOHN DOE 32 133. Plaintiff John Doe 32 is a male who was born in 1990 and who currently resides in 8 Los Angeles County, California. Plaintiff John Doe 32 was a graduate student at USC from 2014 9 to 2017. 10 134. In or around October 2014, in order to obtain a male sexual health examination as 11 part of an ordinary medical health regimen, and to be safe before engaging in sexual activity with 12 his boyfriend, including testing for sexually transmitted diseases, Plaintiff John Doe 32 made an 13 appointment with USC’s Student Health Center. USC scheduled Plaintiff John Doe 32 with the 14 only male sexual health doctor on staff at USC’s Student Health Center, Dr. Kelly. Plaintiff John 15 Doe 32 had only one previous sexual health examination and did not have any unprotected sex 16 since his last screening. 17 135. Plaintiff John Doe 32 went to his appointment and was taken by USC staff to Dr. 18 Kelly’s private office. Dr. Kelly began asking Plaintiff John Doe 32 a series of invasive and 19 pointed questions regarding his sexual history and experiences, including whether he had sex with 20 men, whether he had participated in analingus, how often he watched internet porn, how he met 21 men, including whether he met men online. Plaintiff John Doe 32 informed Dr. Kelly that he had 22 participated in sexual activities with men, but that he was in a monogamous relationship. Dr. 23 Kelly responded that Plaintiff John Doe 32 should still use condoms with his boyfriend because he 24 could contract STDs, implying that his boyfriend might not be monogamous with him. Dr. 25 Kelly’s response made Plaintiff John Doe 32 feel confused and uncomfortable. Plaintiff is 26 informed and believes and thereon alleges that Dr. Kelly’s questioning and commentary were 27 designed to shame, humiliate, and control Plaintiff John Doe 32 so that he would be silenced and 28 -37COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 so that Dr. Kelly could continue the sexual abuse and discrimination of young gay and bisexual 2 males at USC without restraint. 3 136. Despite Plaintiff John Doe 32’s lack of symptoms and the fact that John Doe 32 did 4 not have unprotected sex since his last screening, Dr. Kelly insisted that John Doe 32 have a 5 physical examination, including rectal examination. Dr. Kelly never explained what purpose the 6 physical examination would serve, or whether it was just a visual examination or to collect 7 samples for testing, other than to say that it was necessary “to be safe.” Additionally, even though 8 John Doe 32 did not have any gastrointestinal symptoms or concerns, Dr. Kelly insisted that John 9 Doe 32 submit a fecal sample to be tested for “worms.” 10 137. Dr. Kelly then led John Doe 32 to an examination room so that it was just John Doe 11 32 and Dr. Kelly in the room. Dr. Kelly closed the door behind him and quickly swung his arm to 12 close the privacy curtain behind him, but the curtain was left slightly open. Dr. Kelly then 13 instructed Plaintiff John Doe 32 to undress from the waist down. Dr. Kelly did not leave the room 14 or turn around while John Doe 32 undressed. Dr. Kelly did not provide Plaintiff John Doe 32 with 15 any sort of standard medical modesty covering, such as a robe or lap draping, making John Doe 32 16 feel exposed and uncomfortable. Dr. Kelly stood in front of John Doe 32 as he undressed. 17 138. Without saying a word about the details of the examination, the process, or what to 18 expect, Dr. Kelly sat in a chair in front of John Doe 32 and began using his hands to inspect John 19 Doe 32’s penis and groin area, looking at his genitalia for a prolonged period of time. Dr. Kelly 20 did not swab John Doe 32’s genitals or take any sample. 21 139. Dr. Kelly then instructed John Doe 32 to turn around. John Doe 32 turned around 22 as instructed. He remained standing and began to lean slightly forward as he had done in his 23 previous STI screening involving a rectal examination. But Dr. Kelly instead directed John Doe 24 32 to get on top of the examination table “on all fours,” which John Doe 32 thought was strange. 25 As John Doe 32 was on his hands and knees on the medical examination table facing the wall and 26 with his buttocks facing Dr. Kelly, undressed from the waist down, Plaintiff John Doe 32 suddenly 27 felt something penetrate his anus without warning. Then, suddenly, Dr. Kelly muttered something 28 while stumbling backwards and sideways in an awkward manner toward the door. Dr. Kelly’s -38COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 facial expression appeared to convey embarrassment. Dr. Kelly then swiftly opened the door 2 while John Doe 32 was still on his hands and knees on the exam table with his naked buttocks in 3 the air and with the curtain open, such that anyone in the hallway could have seen him in this 4 position and left. After waiting a few moments, uncomfortable and confused as to why Dr. Kelly 5 had left so awkwardly and abruptly, John Doe 32 got down off the exam table, pulled his clothing 6 back on, and left. 7 140. The examination continued for several minutes, and at no time did Dr. Kelly 8 explain what he was doing. During the examination, Dr. Kelly was silent as Plaintiff John Doe 32 9 was splayed on his hands and knees without any drapery or covering, feeling exposed, humiliated, 10 and distressed. Although he did not realize it at the time, Plaintiff John Doe 32 now knows that 11 Dr. Kelly was not providing legitimate medical treatment to him but was instead sexually abusing 12 him to further his own prurient desires and/or to discriminate, shame, humiliate, and embarrass 13 him as a result of his sexual orientation and/or gender. 14 141. Although Dr. Kelly’s purported “medical examination” caused John Doe 32 to 15 suffer embarrassment, humiliation, shame, pain, and discomfort, and in reasonable reliance upon 16 Defendant USC’s active concealment of its knowledge that Dr. Kelly was a sexual predator and 17 discriminated against men on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or gender, Plaintiff John 18 Doe 32 trusted that Dr. Kelly was in fact conducting a legitimate medical procedure due to his 19 position of authority as a physician employed by Defendant USC. Moreover, John Doe 32 had no 20 choice but to receive care from Dr. Kelly, as he was the only full-time men's sexual health 21 physician at Defendant USC's Student Health Center. 142. 22 It was only after allegations regarding Dr. Kelly’s sexual misconduct and 23 discrimination became public in or around February 2019 that Plaintiff John Doe 32 realized that 24 Dr. Kelly’s treatment of him was not for a legitimate medical purpose, but was rather sexual abuse 25 committed to discriminate against him based on his sexual orientation and/or gender and/or for Dr. 26 Kelly’s own sexual gratification. 27 \\\ 28 \\\ -39COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 2 JOHN DOE 33 143. Plaintiff John Doe 33 is a male who was born in 1997 and who currently resides in 3 Los Angeles County, California. At the time of filing this Complaint, Plaintiff John Doe 33 is an 4 undergraduate student at USC. 5 144. In the Spring of 2017, John Doe 33 made an appointment with USC’s Student 6 Health Center as part of an ordinary medical health regimen, including testing for sexually 7 transmitted diseases. USC scheduled John Doe 33 with Dr. Dennis Kelly, the only men’s health 8 doctor at USC’s Student Health Center. 9 145. Plaintiff John Doe 33 went to his appointment and was taken by USC staff to Dr. 10 Kelly’s private office. Dr. Kelly began asking Plaintiff John Doe 33 a series of questions. When 11 Plaintiff John Doe 33 responded that he was gay and that he had had sex with a man, Dr. Kelly’s 12 questions became much more invasive and uncomfortable. Dr. Kelly asked Plaintiff John Doe 33 13 questions regarding his sexual history and experiences, including, how he felt about his sexuality, 14 how frequently he had sex, how many sexual partners he had had and their genders, whether he 15 had ever paid for sex or been paid for sex, how much he knew about his partner’s sexual histories, 16 what particular sexual positions he used, and whether he used dating apps. When Plaintiff John 17 Doe 33 responded that he was in a long-term relationship, Dr. Kelly remarked that many of John 18 Doe 33’s peers were engaged in very risky behaviors including using various dating apps and 19 hooking up with men anonymously, and that it was nice to see a gay man his age in a relationship. 20 Dr. Kelly’s response made John Doe 33 feel confused, judged, and shamed. Plaintiff is informed 21 and believes and thereon alleges that Dr. Kelly’s questioning and commentary were designed to 22 shame, humiliate, and control John Doe 33 so that he would be silenced and so that Dr. Kelly 23 could continue the sexual abuse and discrimination of young gay and bisexual males at USC 24 without restraint. 25 146. Dr. Kelly then led John Doe 33 to an examination room so that it was just John Doe 26 33 and Dr. Kelly in the room. Dr. Kelly instructed Plaintiff John Doe 33 to undress from the waist 27 down and climb onto the examination table on his hands and knees. Dr. Kelly did not leave the 28 room or turn around while John Doe 33 undressed. Dr. Kelly did not provide Plaintiff John Doe -40COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 33 with any sort of standard medical modesty covering, such as a robe or lap draping, and John 2 Doe 33 did not feel like he could ask for privacy, making John Doe 33 feel exposed and 3 uncomfortable. 4 147. Without saying a word about the details of the examination, the process, or what to 5 expect, as John Doe 33 was on his hands and knees on the medical examination table undressed 6 from the waist down, Plaintiff John Doe 33 suddenly and unexpectedly felt a swab or other object 7 inserted into his rectum without warning. The examination was painful, and at no time did Dr. 8 Kelly explain what he was doing or why he was doing it. During the examination, Dr. Kelly was 9 silent as Plaintiff John Doe 33 was splayed on his hands and knees without any drapery or 10 11 covering, feeling exposed, humiliated, and distressed. 148. After the rectal examination, Dr. Kelly instructed John Doe 33 to turn over and lay 12 flat on his back on the examination table so that Dr. Kelly could examine his groin area. At the 13 time of the examination, Plaintiff had a skin rash near his groin for which he was already receiving 14 treatment from his primary care physician and for which he had no concerns. Dr. Kelly proceeded 15 to examine his groin area for a prolonged period of time and engaged in extended uncomfortable 16 touching of and around his genitals. Dr. Kelly then had a dermatologist come into the room to 17 look at the rash. The dermatologist entered the room and seemed confused and uncomfortable to 18 see Plaintiff John Doe 33 in laying on the table completely naked from the waist down, making 19 John Doe 33 feel even further discomfort. 20 149. Although he did not realize it at the time, Plaintiff John Doe 33 now knows that Dr. 21 Kelly was not providing legitimate medical treatment to him but was instead sexually abusing him 22 to further his own prurient desires and/or to discriminate, shame, humiliate, and embarrass him as 23 a result of his sexual orientation and/or gender. 24 150. Although Dr. Kelly’s purported “medical examination” caused John Doe 33 to 25 suffer embarrassment, humiliation, shame, pain, and discomfort, and in reasonable reliance upon 26 Defendant USC’s active concealment of its knowledge that Dr. Kelly was a sexual predator and 27 discriminated against men on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or gender, Plaintiff John 28 Doe 33 trusted that Dr. Kelly was in fact conducting a legitimate medical procedure due to his -41COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 position of authority as a physician employed by Defendant USC. Moreover, John Doe 33 had no 2 choice but to receive care from Dr. Kelly, as he was the only full-time men's sexual health 3 physician at Defendant USC's Student Health Center. 4 151. It was only after allegations regarding Dr. Kelly’s sexual misconduct and 5 discrimination became public in or around February 2019 that Plaintiff John Doe 33 realized that 6 Dr. Kelly’s treatment of him was not for a legitimate medical purpose, but was rather sexual abuse 7 committed to discriminate against him based on his sexual orientation and/or gender and/or for Dr. 8 Kelly’s own sexual gratification. 9 10 JOHN DOE 34 152. Plaintiff John Doe 34 is a male who was born in 1991 and who currently resides in 11 Los Angeles County, California. At the time of filing this Complaint, Plaintiff John Doe 34 is a 12 graduate student at USC. 13 153. In or around October 2017, in order to obtain a prescription for PrEP, John Doe 34 14 made an appointment with USC’s Student Health Center. USC scheduled John Doe 34 with the 15 doctor on staff at USC’s Student Health Center who could prescribe PrEP, Dr. Dennis Kelly. 16 154. Plaintiff John Doe 34 went to his appointment and was taken by USC staff to Dr. 17 Kelly’s private office. Dr. Kelly began asking Plaintiff John Doe 34 a series of invasive and 18 uncomfortable questions regarding his sexual history and experiences, including whether he had 19 sex with men, whether he “topped or bottomed,” which sexual positions he primarily participated 20 in, whether he used sex toys, how many sexual partners he had been with, and whether he had ever 21 contracted a STD. When John Doe 34 told Dr. Kelly that he had never contracted an STD, Dr. 22 Kelly responded, “Wow, that’s a miracle.” Dr. Kelly then asked how John Doe 34 met men, 23 including whether he met men on dating apps like “Grindr” and “Scruff,” telling John Doe 34, 24 “Don’t sleep with people you meet on the internet.” Dr. Kelly’s response made John Doe 34 feel 25 confused, uncomfortable, and shamed. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that 26 Dr. Kelly’s questioning and commentary were designed to shame, humiliate, and control John Doe 27 34 so that he would be silenced and so that Dr. Kelly could continue the sexual abuse and 28 discrimination of young gay and bisexual males at USC without restraint. -42COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 155. Dr. Kelly then insisted that John Doe 34 submit to a rectal examination, which 2 surprised John Doe 34 because he had always done the anal swabbing on himself for STD 3 screenings in the past. Dr. Kelly then led John Doe 34 to an examination room so that it was just 4 John Doe 34 and Dr. Kelly in the room. Dr. Kelly then instructed Plaintiff John Doe 34 to change 5 into a robe and climb onto the examination table on his hands and knees. John Doe 34 insisted 6 that Dr. Kelly leave the exam room to provide privacy for John Doe 34 to change into the robe, 7 and Dr. Kelly relented. 8 156. Without saying a word about the details of the examination, the process, or what to 9 expect, as John Doe 34 was on his hands and knees on the medical examination table undressed 10 from the waist down, Plaintiff John Doe 34 suddenly felt a swab inserted into his rectum without 11 warning, and later removed. 12 157. The examination continued for several minutes, and at no time did Dr. Kelly 13 explain what he was doing. During the examination, Dr. Kelly was silent as Plaintiff John Doe 34 14 was splayed on his hands and knees without any drapery or covering, feeling exposed, humiliated, 15 and distressed. Although he did not realize it at the time, Plaintiff John Doe 34 now knows that 16 Dr. Kelly was not providing legitimate medical treatment to him but was instead sexually abusing 17 him to further his own prurient desires and/or to discriminate, shame, humiliate, and embarrass 18 him as a result of his sexual orientation and/or gender. 19 158. Following the examination, Plaintiff John Doe 34 sent Dr. Kelly an email to 20 complain about his experience, explaining that Dr. Kelly’s examination made him so 21 uncomfortable that he would not be moving forward with any additional testing and would be 22 pursuing a prescription for PrEP elsewhere, even though Plaintiff John Doe 34 was insured 23 through USC’s student health insurance. 24 159. Although Dr. Kelly’s purported “medical examination” caused John Doe 34 to 25 suffer embarrassment, humiliation, shame, pain, and discomfort, and in reasonable reliance upon 26 Defendant USC’s active concealment of its knowledge that Dr. Kelly was a sexual predator and 27 discriminated against men on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or gender, Plaintiff John 28 Doe 34 trusted that Dr. Kelly was in fact conducting a legitimate medical procedure due to his -43COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 position of authority as a physician employed by Defendant USC. Moreover, John Doe 34 had no 2 choice but to receive care from Dr. Kelly, as he was the only full-time men's sexual health 3 physician at Defendant USC's Student Health Center. 4 160. It was only after allegations regarding Dr. Kelly’s sexual misconduct and 5 discrimination became public in or around February 2019 that Plaintiff John Doe 34 realized that 6 Dr. Kelly’s treatment of him was not for a legitimate medical purpose, but was rather sexual abuse 7 committed to discriminate against him based on his sexual orientation and/or gender and/or for Dr. 8 Kelly’s own sexual gratification. 9 10 JOHN DOE 35 161. Plaintiff John Doe 35 is a male who was born in 1989 and who currently resides in 11 New York State. At the time of his visit with Dr. Kelly, Plaintiff John Doe 35 was an 12 undergraduate student at USC. 13 162. In or around May 2011, in order to obtain a male sexual health examination as part 14 of an ordinary medical health regimen, including testing for sexually transmitted diseases, Plaintiff 15 John Doe 35 made an appointment with USC’s Student Health Center. USC scheduled John Doe 16 35 with the only male sexual health doctor on staff at USC’s Student Health Center, Dr. Kelly. 17 163. Plaintiff John Doe 35 went to his appointment and was taken by USC staff to Dr. 18 Kelly’s exam room. Dr. Kelly began asking Plaintiff John Doe 35 questions regarding his sexual 19 history and experiences, including how many partners he had, whether he had ever had any 20 sexually transmitted infections, how sexually active he was, when his last sexual activity was, and 21 whether his sexual partners were men or women. When Plaintiff John Doe 35 told Dr. Kelly that 22 he identified as bisexual, Dr. Kelly began asking him a series of more targeted invasive and 23 uncomfortable questions regarding his sexual activity with men including how many male sexual 24 partners he had, whether he used sex toys, whether he shared sex toys with men, how often he 25 watched pornography, whether he generally gave or received anal sex with men, whether he had 26 ever been paid for sex, whether he had ever paid for sex, and how he met men. John Doe 35 27 informed Dr. Kelly that he had only received anal sex with one partner a couple of times when 28 they were in high school, five years prior, and that they were both each other’s “first.” -44COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 164. Despite the fact that John Doe 35 had not participated in anally receptive sex in five 2 years and had no complaints or symptoms, Dr. Kelly insisted that he needed to conduct a rectal 3 examination on John Doe 35 to inspect for “polyps” or “lesions,” explaining that men who have 4 received anal sex can get “polyps” or “lesions” inside their anus, so he would need to check inside 5 John Doe 35’s anus. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Dr. Kelly’s 6 questioning and commentary were designed to alarm, panic, and control John Doe 35 so that he 7 would be silenced and so that he would submit to Dr. Kelly’s sexual abuse and discrimination of 8 him, and so that Dr. Kelly could continue the sexual abuse and discrimination of young gay and 9 bisexual males at USC without restraint. John Doe 35 was alarmed and confused but relented. 10 Dr. Kelly then instructed Plaintiff John Doe 35 to pull down his pants and underwear and climb 11 onto the examination table on his hands and knees. 12 165. As John Doe 35 was on his hands and knees on the medical examination table 13 undressed from the waist down, Plaintiff John Doe 35 felt Dr. Kelly insert a clear cylindrical 14 device into his rectum and using a flashlight looked around his anus and rectum for a prolonged 15 period of time. The physical examination continued for several minutes. During the examination, 16 Dr. Kelly was silent as Plaintiff John Doe 35 was splayed on his hands and knees without any 17 drapery or covering, feeling exposed, humiliated, and distressed. Although he did not realize it at 18 the time, Plaintiff John Doe 35 now knows that Dr. Kelly was not providing legitimate medical 19 treatment to him but was instead sexually abusing him to further his own prurient desires and/or to 20 discriminate, shame, humiliate, and embarrass him as a result of his sexual orientation and/or 21 gender. 22 166. Although Dr. Kelly’s purported “medical examination” caused John Doe 35 to 23 suffer embarrassment, humiliation, shame, pain, and discomfort, and in reasonable reliance upon 24 Defendant USC’s active concealment of its knowledge that Dr. Kelly was a sexual predator and 25 discriminated against men on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or gender, Plaintiff John 26 Doe 35 trusted that Dr. Kelly was in fact conducting a legitimate medical procedure due to his 27 position of authority as a physician employed by Defendant USC. Moreover, John Doe 35 had no 28 -45COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 choice but to receive care from Dr. Kelly, as he was the only full-time men's sexual health 2 physician at Defendant USC's Student Health Center. 3 167. It was only after allegations regarding Dr. Kelly’s sexual misconduct and 4 discrimination became public in or around February 2019 that Plaintiff John Doe 35 realized that 5 Dr. Kelly’s treatment of him was not for a legitimate medical purpose, but was rather sexual abuse 6 committed to discriminate against him based on his sexual orientation and/or gender and/or for Dr. 7 Kelly’s own sexual gratification. 8 9 JOHN DOE 36 168. Plaintiff John Doe 36 is a male who was born in 1988 and who currently resides in 10 Los Angeles County, California. At the time of his visit with Dr. Kelly, Plaintiff John Doe 36 was 11 a graduate student at USC. 12 169. In or around August 2010, Plaintiff John Doe 36 scheduled a visit to USC’s Student 13 Health Center related to intermittent rectal pain and bleeding he had been experiencing following a 14 sexual assault by another man. He was seen by Dr. Lisa Richardson to whom he provided his 15 history and relevant details of the sexual assault. After asking questions and conducting a 16 minimally invasive physical examination, Dr. Richardson diagnosed John Doe 36 with external 17 hemorrhoids, conducted a sexually transmitted infection screening, and prescribed him with 18 medication and comfort measures to treat and alleviate his symptoms. Plaintiff John Doe 36 left 19 the appointment feeling proud of himself and hopeful about his recovery. 20 170. Plaintiff John Doe 36 returned for a follow up visit with Dr. Richardson a few 21 weeks later to further evaluate his symptoms and to receive his lab results, which all came back 22 normal. Dr. Richardson referred Plaintiff John Doe 36 for a follow up visit with Dr. Kelly for 23 several weeks out. 24 171. In or around September 2010, Plaintiff John Doe 36 went to his appointment with 25 Dr. Kelly and was taken by USC staff to Dr. Kelly’s exam room. Dr. Kelly began asking Plaintiff 26 John Doe 36 a series of invasive questions regarding his sexual history and experiences. Very 27 early in his questioning, Dr. Kelly asked John Doe 36 about his sexual assault, even though John 28 Doe 36 had already provided the relevant details of his assault to Dr. Richardson at his previous -46COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 visits, which Dr. Richardson noted in his records. John Doe 36 felt it unnecessary to repeat 2 himself and relive the deeply traumatic experience of his assault, but Dr. Kelly was surprisingly 3 insistent that John Doe 36 provide him with details. When John Doe 36 expressed reluctance to 4 provide details of his assault, Dr. Kelly suggested that he could not treat John Doe 36 if he did not 5 answer his questions. John Doe 36 told Dr. Kelly that he had been “roofied” and did not 6 remember “much of it” to which Dr. Kelly aggressively retorted, “But you remember something?” 7 John Doe 36 relented, repeating what he told Dr. Richardson, that he was forcibly penetrated by a 8 man’s hand. But Dr. Kelly continued, aggressively pushing for details of the assault. Dr. Kelly 9 asked, “By how may fingers?” Visibly upset and humiliated, John Doe 36 was shocked and silent. 10 But Dr. Kelly insisted, asking, “One finger?... Two fingers?... Were you fisted?” Shaking and 11 openly crying, John Doe 36 told him, “Four.” Dr. Kelly then described the forcible penetration of 12 John Doe 36’s rectum as “normal, sexual activity” and as something “people do for pleasure.” Dr. 13 Kelly then asked whether John Doe 36’s forcible penetration was welcomed by John Doe 36 and 14 asked whether he enjoyed it at all or found enjoyment in it. Plaintiff is informed and believes that 15 at some point Dr. Kelly asked him whether his symptoms were “psychosomatic.” Dr. Kelly’s 16 aggressive and abusive line of questioning culminated in John Doe 36 burying his head in his 17 hands in tears. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Dr. Kelly’s questioning 18 and commentary were to further his own prurient desires and/or were designed to shame, 19 humiliate, and control John Doe 36 so that he would be silenced and submit to Dr. Kelly’s sexual 20 abuse, and so that Dr. Kelly could continue the sexual abuse and discrimination of young gay and 21 bisexual males at USC without restraint. 22 172. Despite the fact that John Doe 36 had a recent STI screening and physical 23 examination with Dr. Richardson, which came back normal, Dr. Kelly insisted on conducting a 24 physical examination, including a rectal examination on John Doe 36. John Doe 36 was still 25 shaken, but obliged. Dr. Kelly instructed Plaintiff John Doe 36 to pull down his pants and 26 underwear and climb onto the examination table on “all fours.” Dr. Kelly did not leave the room 27 or turn around while John Doe 36 undressed. Dr. Kelly did not provide Plaintiff John Doe 36 with 28 -47COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 any sort of standard medical modesty covering, such as a robe or lap draping, making John Doe 36 2 feel exposed and uncomfortable. 3 173. John Doe 36 awkwardly struggled to get onto the examination table on all fours. 4 John Doe 36’s body trembled slightly as Dr. Kelly approached him from across the room. 5 Without saying a word about the details of the examination, the process, or what to expect, as John 6 Doe 36 was on his hands and knees on the medical examination table undressed from the waist 7 down, Plaintiff John Doe 36 felt Dr. Kelly insert a finger and then a medical device into his 8 rectum and then looked around his anus and rectum for a prolonged period of time – notably far 9 longer than any inspection John Doe 36 has experienced in subsequent medical examinations. 10 174. While still on “all fours” and with his pants and underwear around his ankles, Dr. 11 Kelly then instructed John Doe 36 to roll over onto his back. Laying on his back, Dr. Kelly took 12 John Doe 36’s penis and testicles into his hands and began shifting them around. 13 175. The physical examination continued for several minutes, and at no time did Dr. 14 Kelly explain what he was doing. Although he did not realize it at the time, Plaintiff John Doe 36 15 now knows that Dr. Kelly was not providing legitimate medical treatment to him but was instead 16 sexually abusing him to further his own prurient desires and/or to discriminate, shame, humiliate, 17 and embarrass him as a result of his sexual orientation and/or gender. 18 176. Although Dr. Kelly’s purported “medical examination” caused John Doe 36 to 19 suffer embarrassment, humiliation, shame, pain, and discomfort, and in reasonable reliance upon 20 Defendant USC’s active concealment of its knowledge that Dr. Kelly was a sexual predator and 21 discriminated against men on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or gender, Plaintiff John 22 Doe 36 trusted that Dr. Kelly was in fact conducting a legitimate medical procedure due to his 23 position of authority as a physician employed by Defendant USC. Moreover, John Doe 36 had no 24 choice but to receive care from Dr. Kelly, as he was the only full-time men's sexual health 25 physician at Defendant USC's Student Health Center. 26 177. It was only after allegations regarding Dr. Kelly’s sexual misconduct and 27 discrimination became public in or around February 2019 that Plaintiff John Doe 36 realized that 28 Dr. Kelly’s treatment of him was not for a legitimate medical purpose, but was rather sexual abuse -48COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 committed to discriminate against him based on his sexual orientation and/or gender and/or for Dr. 2 Kelly’s own sexual gratification. 3 4 JOHN DOE 37 178. Plaintiff John Doe 37 is a male who was born in 1997 and who currently resides in 5 Los Angeles County, California. At the time of filing this Complaint, Plaintiff John Doe 37 is an 6 undergraduate student at USC. 7 179. In or around September 2017, in order to obtain a prescription for PrEP, John Doe 8 37 made an appointment with USC’s Student Health Center. USC scheduled John Doe 37 with 9 the doctor on staff at USC’s Student Health Center who could prescribe PrEP, Dr. Dennis Kelly. 10 180. Plaintiff John Doe 37 went to his appointment and was taken by USC staff to Dr. 11 Kelly’s private office. Dr. Kelly began asking Plaintiff John Doe 37 a series of invasive and 12 uncomfortable questions regarding his sexual history and experiences, including whether he had 13 sex with men, how many sexual partners he had, whether he had been paid for sex, whether he had 14 paid anyone for sex, whether he used sex toys, what sexual activities he had participated in, 15 whether John Doe 37 was a “top or bottom,” and how he met men, including whether he met them 16 online on dating apps like “Grindr” and “Tinder.” Dr. Kelly warned John Doe 37, “You should 17 use condoms.” John Doe 37 asked whether Dr. Kelly always used condoms with his partner, Dr. 18 Kelly said, “Well, I don’t do that,” referring to the fact that John Doe 37 had more than one 19 partner. Dr. Kelly’s unprofessional vocabulary, questions and comments made John Doe 37 feel 20 humiliated, confused, and judged. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Dr. 21 Kelly’s questioning and commentary were designed to shame, humiliate, and control John Doe 37 22 so that he would be silenced and so that Dr. Kelly could continue the sexual abuse and 23 discrimination of young gay and bisexual males at USC without restraint. 24 181. Although he did not realize it at the time, Plaintiff John Doe 37 now knows that Dr. 25 Kelly was not providing legitimate medical treatment to him but was instead sexually harassing 26 him to further his own prurient desires and/or to discriminate, shame, humiliate, and embarrass 27 him as a result of his sexual orientation and/or gender. Plaintiff John Doe 37 left Dr. Kelly’s visit 28 in tears. -49COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 182. Although Dr. Kelly’s purported “medical examinations” caused John Doe 37 to 2 suffer embarrassment, humiliation, shame, pain, and discomfort, and in reasonable reliance upon 3 Defendant USC’s active concealment of its knowledge that Dr, Kelly was a sexual predator and 4 discriminated against men on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or gender, Plaintiff John 5 Doe 37 trusted that Dr. Kelly was in fact conducting a legitimate medical procedure due to his 6 position of authority as a physician employed by Defendant USC. Moreover, John Doe 37 had no 7 choice but to receive sexual health care from Dr. Kelly, as he was the only full-time men's sexual 8 health physician at Defendant USC's Student Health Center. 9 183. It was only after allegations regarding Dr. Kelly’s sexual misconduct and 10 discrimination became public in or around February 2019 that Plaintiff John Doe 37 realized that 11 Dr. Kelly’s treatment of him was not for a legitimate medical purpose, but was rather sexual 12 misconduct committed to discriminate against him based on his sexual orientation and/or gender 13 and/or for Dr. Kelly’s own sexual gratification. 14 15 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS RELEVANT TO ALL PARTIES 184. Plaintiffs were young male gay or bisexual undergraduate students at USC when 16 they were subjected to the unlawful behavior by Dr. Kelly, as described herein. Many were 17 inexperienced in the kinds of intimate examinations that gave rise to the claims asserted herein. 18 185. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Dr. Kelly received his 19 medical degree in 1972 from the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, and he received his 20 medical license on March 20, 1974. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereon allege 21 that Defendant USC thereafter hired Dr. Kelly as a full-time physician to address men’s sexual 22 health at its Student Health Center later known as the Engemann Student Health Center. 23 186. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that during his tenure at 24 USC, Dr. Kelly sexually abused and molested dozens of young male gay and bisexual students, 25 including Plaintiffs, through the use of his position, power, authority, and trust as the only full- 26 time men’s health specialist employed by USC Student Health Services. At all times alleged 27 herein, Dr. Kelly was an employee, agent, and/or servant of Defendant USC and Does 1 through 28 100, and/or was under their complete control and/or direct supervision. -50COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 187. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Dr. Kelly was retained as 2 a men’s health physician to provide medical care and treatment to young men attending USC as 3 undergraduate and graduate students, most of whom were very young adults and many of whom 4 had never had any sexual health visits prior to attending USC. It was through this position of trust 5 and confidence that Dr. Kelly exploited Plaintiffs in perpetrating his sexual abuse and battery upon 6 Plaintiffs and discriminating against Plaintiffs based on their sexual orientation and/or gender. 7 Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that all of the sexually abusive, harassing, 8 and discriminatory conduct alleged herein was done to satisfy Dr. Kelly’s own prurient sexual 9 desires and/or to shame, humiliate, and embarrass Plaintiffs as a result of their sexual orientation. 10 188. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that in hiring Dr. Kelly as its 11 only full-time men’s sexual health physician, Defendant USC gave Dr. Kelly full power, control, 12 and authority to treat and provide men’s sexual health medical care to its undergraduate and 13 graduate students. By continuing to employ Dr. Kelly, USC held Dr. Kelly out to be a 14 professional and legitimate men’s health physician. 15 189. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all times relevant 16 herein, Defendant USC owned, operated, maintained, controlled, and staffed its Student Health 17 Center later known as the Engemann Student Health Center. Defendant USC promoted its Student 18 Health Center as a safe place where students could obtain high quality medical treatment, and 19 USC encouraged men to receive regular sexual health checkups to ensure their health and 20 wellness. 21 190. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all times relevant 22 herein, Plaintiffs were under Defendants USC, Dr. Kelly, and Does 1 through 100’s complete 23 control, dominion, and supervision when they were subjected to the discriminatory behavior and 24 sexual misconduct of Dr. Kelly as described herein. 25 191. All Plaintiffs were undergraduate students and paid for health services at USC. 26 Defendant USC caused them to be directed to its Student Health Center later known as the 27 Engemann Student Health Center for, among other things, men’s sexual health care. The Student 28 Health Center assigned these Plaintiffs to see Dr. Kelly for any and all examinations, treatment, -51COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 testing, and/or concerns related to their sexual health. Some of the Plaintiffs had never received 2 any examination, treatment, or testing related to their sexual health before seeing Dr. Kelly. 3 Plaintiffs put their full trust and confidence in Dr. Kelly, assuming his advice, conduct, and 4 treatment during the examinations were necessary and appropriate. 5 192. At all times relevant herein, a special relationship arose among Defendants USC 6 and Dr. Kelly, acting on its own or through the Student Health Center, on the one hand, and each 7 Plaintiff, on the other hand, and Defendants stood in the position of a fiduciary toward each of the 8 Plaintiffs by virtue of (1) the patient-health care provider relationship that arose; (2) the superior 9 knowledge that Defendants possessed with respect to standards of care, discriminatory conduct, 10 and allegations against Dr. Kelly; and (3) each Plaintiff’s dependence upon the Defendants for 11 information regarding their treatment. 12 193. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that because of the 13 relationship between Plaintiffs and Defendants, Defendants had an obligation and a duty under the 14 law to, among other things, make a full and fair disclosure to each Plaintiff of all facts which 15 materially affected his rights and interests and to disclose to each Plaintiff the full extent of Dr. 16 Kelly’s discriminatory and sexual misconduct and/or Defendant USC’s errors, omissions, and 17 concealments related to Dr. Kelly’s discriminatory and sexual misconduct. Additionally, each 18 Plaintiff had the right to make an informed decision about whether to subject himself to treatment 19 by Dr. Kelly. 20 194. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereon allege that because of the 21 relationship between Plaintiffs and Defendants, Defendants had an obligation and duty under the 22 law not to hide material facts and information about Dr. Kelly’s past sexual misconduct and 23 discrimination. Defendant USC failed to fulfill its fiduciary duty to disclose Dr. Kelly’s wrongful 24 actions. Additionally, Defendants had an affirmative duty to warn, inform, and institute 25 appropriate protective measures to safeguard patients who were reasonably likely to come in 26 contact with Dr. Kelly. Defendants willfully refused to notify, give adequate warning, or 27 implement appropriate safeguards, and that failure was willful, intentional, and in reckless 28 disregard for the Plaintiffs’ respective rights and safety. That failure was the product of Defendant -52COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 USC’s selfish desire to promote or preserve its own reputation and revenues without regard for the 2 Plaintiffs’ rights, choices, and safety. 3 195. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that during Dr. Kelly’s 4 employment with Defendant USC, Dr. Kelly discriminated against, sexually battered, abused, 5 harassed and engaged in other unlawful behavior with young male gay and bisexual students, 6 other than Plaintiffs, who saw Dr. Kelly for treatment, examinations, and/or consultations. 7 Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that young male gay and bisexual students 8 other than Plaintiffs made complaints to USC regarding Dr. Kelly’s misconduct, but USC failed to 9 take any action related to such complaints. 10 196. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant USC knew, 11 should have known, and/or were put on notice of Dr. Kelly’s past sexual abuse and discrimination 12 toward young gay and bisexual male students, and USC intentionally failed to take any 13 appropriate action to protect gay and bisexual male students from unlawful behavior by Dr. Kelly 14 in order to protect the reputation and revenues of USC and to avoid legal liability. 15 197. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant USC 16 concealed the fact that gay and bisexual male students had complained about Dr. Kelly in order to 17 protect the revenues and reputation of USC and to avoid legal liability. 18 198. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants failed to 19 implement reasonable safeguards to avoid acts of unlawful sexual misconduct and discrimination 20 by Dr. Kelly in the future, including avoiding placement of Dr. Kelly in a position where contact 21 and interaction with vulnerable patients and students is an inherent function. 22 199. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants failed to 23 adequately train and supervise all staff to create a positive and safe environment, specifically 24 including training to perceive, report, and stop inappropriate sexual misconduct and discrimination 25 by other members and staff. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that 26 Defendants failed to adopt and implement safety measures, policies, and procedures designed to 27 protect patients such as Plaintiffs from sexually exploitative and discriminatory acts by 28 Defendants’ agents and employees. -53COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 200. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants USC and Dr. 2 Kelly entered into a conspiracy, the object of which was to conceal the fact that students and/or 3 Defendant USC employees had complained of sexually improper behavior and discriminatory 4 behavior by Dr. Kelly, to conceal the fact that Dr. Kelly had been known to sexually batter gay 5 and bisexual male patients, and to enable Dr. Kelly to continue practicing medicine without 6 restriction. 7 201. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants USC and Dr. 8 Kelly conspired to conceal Defendant USC’s negligence in supervising Dr. Kelly and acted in 9 furtherance of that conspiracy. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereon allege that 10 in furtherance of that conspiracy, Defendant USC and Dr. Kelly ensured that complaints of sexual 11 misconduct, suspected sexual misconduct, or discrimination by Dr. Kelly towards male gay and 12 bisexual patients were effectively ignored, inadequately investigated, or falsely found to be 13 without merit. 14 202. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that in furtherance of the 15 above conspiracy, rather than reporting Dr. Kelly to any legal authorities and/or the California 16 Medical Board, and/or the students and staff at USC, including Plaintiffs, Defendant USC sought 17 to preserve its reputation and ensure that USC’s fundraising efforts were not adversely affected, 18 and actively concealed and allowed Dr. Kelly to continue his abuse, harassment, and 19 discrimination of young male gay and bisexual students at USC. 20 203. It was not until after media reports, including a publication by the Los Angeles 21 Times in May 2018 exposing USC’s gynecologist Dr. George Tyndall of rampant sexual abuse of 22 female students for decades at USC, and USC’s concealment and knowledge of such sexual abuse, 23 that Plaintiffs became aware that Dr. Kelly’s behavior during their examinations was unlawful and 24 not for a legitimate medical purpose and that his actions during the examination were committed 25 to discriminate against them based on their sexual orientation and/or gender and/or for Dr. Kelly’s 26 own prurient interests and sexual gratification. 27 28 204. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant USC engaged in a pattern and practice of ignoring complaints, failing to investigate sexual abuse and -54COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 discrimination complaints, deliberately concealing information from victims, and contributed to a 2 sexually hostile and discriminatory environment on campus at USC. Plaintiffs are further 3 informed and believe and thereon allege that USC had and continues to have a pattern and practice 4 of putting their profits, reputation, and prospect of financial gain over the health, safety, and well- 5 being of its students. For example, according to media reports which emerged in or around the 6 summer of 2018, Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant USC knew 7 of gynecologist Dr. George Tyndall’s sexual abuse of female students since at least 1990 or 1991 8 when female patients, students, and USC employees complained about Dr. George Tyndall’s 9 inappropriate sexual misconduct. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that 10 instead of informing students of Dr. George Tyndall’s behavior, reporting him to the California 11 Medical Board, reporting him to legal authorities, or terminating his position at USC, USC 12 actively concealed Dr. George Tyndall’s unlawful behavior, allowed Dr. George Tyndall to 13 continue treating patients for decades, and permitted Dr. George Tyndall to quietly resign his 14 position and paid him a generous monetary settlement in or about June 2017. 15 205. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that it was not until after such 16 media reports in or around May 2018 that Plaintiffs realized that USC similarly failed to take 17 appropriate action with respect to complaints regarding Dr. Kelly, failed to protect its students 18 from Dr. Kelly’s conduct, allowed Dr. Kelly to continue treating patients for years, and actively 19 concealed complaints of Dr. Kelly’s misconduct. 20 206. In subjecting Plaintiffs to the wrongful treatment described herein, Defendants Dr. 21 Kelly, USC, and Does 1 through 100 acted willfully and maliciously with the intent to harm 22 Plaintiffs and in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights and safety so as to constitute malice 23 and/or oppression under Civil Code section 3294. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon 24 allege that Defendants, under the authority as an educational institution and medical provider, 25 acted with reckless disregard for the concern of its student-patients in its charge in order to 26 maintain funding and further financially benefit its business’s growth. Plaintiffs are further 27 informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants acted intentionally in creating an 28 environment of sexual abuse and discrimination, in putting its vulnerable young students at risk of -55COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 harm, and in ignoring warning signs and complaints about ongoing sexual abuse and 2 discrimination, all to maintain a façade of normalcy in order to uphold its funding and provide 3 Defendants with further financial growth. The safety of the student-patients that were entrusted to 4 Defendants was compromised due to Defendants’ desire to maintain the status quo and to continue 5 to enjoy the financial support of the alumni of USC and to avoid any public scrutiny. Plaintiffs are 6 thus informed and believe and thereon allege that these willful, malicious, and/or oppressive acts, 7 as alleged herein, were ratified by the officers, directors, and/or managing agents of the 8 Defendants, and Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to recover punitive damages in an amount to be 9 determined by proof against Defendants at trial. 10 207. As a direct result of the sexual abuse, harassment, and discrimination by Dr. Kelly, 11 and USC’s pattern and practice of concealment, fraud, and endangerment of their student 12 population for the benefit of their own reputation and financial gain, Plaintiffs have had difficulty 13 in meaningfully interacting with others including family, friends, and partners, and those in 14 positions of authority over Plaintiffs including physicians, supervisors, and superiors at work. It 15 has further caused Plaintiffs to suffer special and general damages, including but not limited to 16 severe emotional distress, lack of trust, nervousness, anxiety, worry, mortification, humiliation, 17 embarrassment, depression, shame, sadness, anger and fear. 18 19 20 21 22 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Sexual Battery in Violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 1708.5 (Plaintiffs John Does 20-36 Against Defendant Dr. Kelly and Does 1 through 100) 208. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 209. California Civil Code section 1708.5 provides: A person commits a sexual battery 23 who does any of the following: (1) acts with the intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact with 24 an intimate part of another, and a sexually offensive contact with that person directly or indirectly 25 results; (2) acts with the intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact with another by use of his 26 or her intimate part, and a sexually offensive contact with that person directly or indirectly results; 27 (3) acts to cause an imminent apprehension of the conduct described in paragraph (1) or (2) and a 28 sexually offensive contact with that person directly or indirectly results. -56COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 2 210. anus, groin, or buttocks of any person, or the breast of a female. 3 4 California Civil Code section 1708.5(d) defines “intimate part” as the sexual organ, 211. California Civil Code section 1708.5(f) defines “offensive contact” to mean contact that offends a reasonable sense of personal dignity. 5 212. Plaintiffs allege that during Plaintiffs’ time as students with Defendant USC, 6 Defendant Dr. Kelly committed the act of civil sexual battery in violation of California Civil Code 7 section 1708.5 when he intentionally, recklessly, and wantonly did acts which intended to, and did 8 result in, harmful and offensive contact with intimate parts of Plaintiffs’ persons, including but not 9 limited to inappropriately probing, touching, fondling, and/or penetrating Plaintiffs’ anuses, 10 beginning in or around 2007 and lasting through the duration of Plaintiffs’ tenure with Defendants 11 USC to in and around 2014. Such contact offended Plaintiffs’ reasonable sense of personal 12 dignity. 13 213. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Dr. Kelly’s unlawful conduct as 14 alleged herein, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer economic loss, emotional distress, 15 humiliation, embarrassment, anxiety, depression, shame, sadness, fear, anger, loss of self-esteem, 16 loss of enjoyment of life, and impairment of daily life activities, all in an amount exceeding the 17 jurisdictional limitations of the Superior Court and in an amount according to proof at trial. 18 214. The aforementioned conduct by Defendant Dr. Kelly was willful, wanton, and 19 malicious. At all relevant times herein, Dr. Kelly acted with conscious disregard of the Plaintiffs’ 20 rights and feelings. Dr. Kelly also acted with the knowledge of or with reckless disregard for the 21 fact that his conduct was certain to cause injury and/or humiliation to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are 22 further informed and believe and thereon allege that Dr. Kelly intended to cause fear, physical 23 injury, humiliation, embarrassment and/or pain and suffering to the Plaintiffs. By virtue of the 24 foregoing, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover punitive damages from Dr. Kelly according to proof at 25 trial. 26 \\\ 27 \\\ 28 \\\ -57COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Battery (Plaintiffs John Does 20-36 Against Defendant Dr. Kelly and Does 1 through 100) 2 215. 3 4 Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 216. 5 In performing the acts described herein, Dr. Kelly acted with the intent to make a 6 harmful and offensive contact with Plaintiff’s person and did, in fact, bring himself into offensive 7 and unwelcome contact with Plaintiffs ask described above. 217. 8 9 10 At all relevant times, Plaintiffs found the contact by Dr. Kelly to be offensive to their person and dignity. At no time did Plaintiffs knowingly consent to any of the acts by Defendant Kelly as alleged herein. 11 218. As a result of Dr. Kelly’s acts described above, Plaintiffs were harmed and/or 12 offended by Dr. Kelly’s conduct, and a reasonable person in Plaintiffs’ situation would have been 13 harmed and/or offended by the touching. 219. 14 As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Dr. Kelly’s unlawful conduct as 15 alleged herein, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer economic loss, emotional distress, 16 humiliation, embarrassment, anxiety, depression, shame, sadness, fear, anger, loss of self-esteem, 17 loss of enjoyment of life, and impairment of daily life activities, all in an amount exceeding the 18 jurisdictional limitations of the Superior Court and in an amount according to proof at trial. 220. 19 The aforementioned conduct by Defendant Dr. Kelly was willful, wanton, and 20 malicious. At all relevant times herein, Dr. Kelly acted with conscious disregard of the Plaintiffs’ 21 rights and feelings. Dr. Kelly also acted with the knowledge of or with reckless disregard for the 22 fact that his conduct was certain to cause injury and/or harm to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are further 23 informed and believe and thereon allege that Dr. Kelly intended to cause fear, physical injury, 24 humiliation, embarrassment and/or pain and suffering to the Plaintiffs. By virtue of the foregoing, 25 Plaintiffs are entitled to recover punitive damages from Dr. Kelly according to proof at trial. 26 \\\ 27 \\\ 28 \\\ -58COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Gender Violence in Violation of Civil Code § 52.4 (Plaintiffs Against Defendant Dr. Kelly and Does 1 through 100) 2 3 4 5 221. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 222. Dr. Kelly’s acts committed against Plaintiffs, as alleged herein, including the 6 sexual abuse, harassment, molestation and discrimination of Plaintiffs constitutes gender violence 7 and a form of sex discrimination in that one or more of Dr. Kelly’s acts would constitute a 8 criminal offense under state law that has an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of 9 physical force against the person of another, committed at least in part based on the gender of the 10 victim, whether or not those acts have resulted in criminal complaints, charges, prosecution or 11 conviction. 12 223. Dr. Kelly’s acts committed against Plaintiffs as alleged herein, including the sexual 13 harassment, molestation, and abuse of the Plaintiffs constitutes gender violence and a form of sex 14 discrimination in that Dr. Kelly’s conduct caused a physical intrusion or physical invasion of a 15 sexual nature upon Plaintiffs under coercive conditions, whether or not those acts have resulted in 16 criminal complaints, charges, prosecution, or conviction. 17 224. As a direct and proximate result of Dr. Kelly’s acts, Plaintiffs are entitled to actual 18 damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, any combination of those, 19 or any other appropriate relief. Plaintiffs are further entitled to attorney’s fees and costs pursuant 20 to Civil Code section 52.4, subsection (a). 21 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Sexual Harassment in Violation of Civil Code § 51.9 (Plaintiffs Against Defendant USC and Does 1 through 100) 22 23 24 25 225. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 226. During Plaintiffs’ time as students at Defendant USC and Does 1 through 100, Dr. 26 Kelly intentionally, recklessly, and wantonly made sexual advances, requests, demands for sexual 27 compliance, and verbal conduct of a hostile nature based in part on Plaintiffs’ gender and/or sexual 28 orientation that were unwelcome, pervasive, and severe, including but not limited to, Dr. Kelly -59COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 inappropriately probing, touching, fondling, and/or penetrating Plaintiffs’ anuses, and/or 2 demanding answers to questions and making inappropriate comments that are invasive, 3 inappropriate, offensive, hostile as described above, all under the supervision of Defendants, who 4 were acting in the course and scope of their agency with Defendants and each of them. 5 227. The incidents of abuse outlined herein took place while Plaintiffs were under the 6 control of Dr. Kelly and Defendants USC and Does 1 through 100, in their capacity and position 7 as supervisors of physicians, medical professionals, and staff at USC and Does 1 through 100, and 8 while acting specifically on behalf of Defendants. 9 228. During Plaintiffs’ time as students at Defendants USC and Does 1 through 100, Dr. 10 Kelly intentionally, recklessly, and wantonly did acts which resulted in harmful and offensive 11 contact with intimate parts of Plaintiffs’ persons, including but not limited to, using his position of 12 authority and age to force Plaintiffs to give into Dr. Kelly’s sexual suggestions. 13 229. Because of Plaintiffs’ relationships with Dr. Kelly and Defendants USC and Does 1 14 through 100, Dr. Kelly’s status as the only full-time men’s sexual health physician employed by 15 Defendant USC’s Student Health Center, and Plaintiffs’ young age as students of USC, Plaintiffs 16 were unable to easily terminate the relationship they had with the Defendants. 17 230. Because of Dr. Kelly’s age and position of authority, physical seclusion of the 18 Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ mental and emotional state, and Plaintiffs’ young age, Plaintiffs were unable 19 to and did not and could not give consent to such acts. 20 231. Even though Defendants knew or should have known of these activities by Dr. 21 Kelly, Defendants did nothing to investigate, supervise, or monitor Dr. Kelly to ensure the safety 22 of the student-patients in their charge. 23 232. A corporation is a “person” within the meaning of Civil Code section 51.9 which 24 subjects persons to liability for sexual harassment within the business, service or professional 25 relationship, and such an entity defendant may be held liable under this statute for the acts of its 26 employees. Further, principles of ratification apply when the principal ratifies the agent’s 27 originally unauthorized harassment, as is alleged to have occurred herein. 28 \\\ -60COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 2 3 233. Defendants’ conduct and the conduct of their agents was a breach of their duties to Plaintiffs. 234. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Dr. Kelly’s unlawful conduct as 4 alleged herein, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer economic loss, emotional distress, 5 humiliation, embarrassment, anxiety, depression, shame, sadness, fear, anger, loss of self-esteem, 6 loss of enjoyment of life, and impairment of daily life activities, all in an amount exceeding the 7 jurisdictional limitations of the Superior Court and in an amount according to proof at trial. 8 Plaintiffs are entitled to actual damages, exemplary damages, civil penalties, attorney’s fees and 9 costs pursuant to Civil Code section 52 subsection (b), and any combination of those, or any other 10 appropriate relief. 11 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code § 51 (Plaintiffs Against All Defendants) 12 13 14 15 235. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 236. The Plaintiffs’ civil rights were violated by Defendants USC and Does 1 through 16 100 through its agents, actors, and employees, and intentionally concealed or ignored complaints 17 of sexual abuse or harassment by Defendant Dr. Kelly. Plaintiffs had a right to be free from 18 sexual orientation and gender discrimination, sexual abuse, molestation, and harassment under the 19 Unruh Civil Rights Act. 20 237. Defendants USC, Dr. Kelly, and Does 1 through 100 were acting under the color of 21 authority and in the scope of their employment during the instances when Plaintiffs were student- 22 patients at USC. 23 238. Defendant USC denied Plaintiffs full and equal accommodations, advantages, 24 facilities, privileges, and health care services because of their sexual orientation and gender by 25 allowing Dr. Kelly unfettered access to sexually abuse, harass, and discriminate against Plaintiffs 26 by and through his position of authority as the Student Health Center’s only full-time men’s sexual 27 health physician with regular availability, by actively ignoring and concealing from Plaintiffs its 28 knowledge that Dr. Kelly was discriminatory and a sexual predator. -61COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 239. By employing and retaining Dr. Kelly as the sole full-time men’s health physician 2 with regular availability at its Student Health Clinic, despite its knowledge of Dr. Kelly’s abusive 3 and discriminatory behavior, Defendant USC forced its male gay and bisexual patients to seek 4 necessary medical treatment from Dr. Kelly, thereby exposing Plaintiffs to Dr. Kelly’s sexual 5 abuse and discrimination. Thus, Defendant USC’s retention of Dr. Kelly denied Plaintiffs and all 6 of its other young male gay and bisexual students, of full and equal access to safe medical 7 facilities, treatment, and services based upon their sexual orientation and gender. 8 9 240. The substantial motivating reason for Defendants’ conduct, including Defendant USC’s conduct of ignoring and actively concealing reports and complaints of Dr. Kelly’s 10 misconduct, was Plaintiffs’ sexual orientation and/or gender, as Defendants knew that its male 11 students, including male gay and bisexual students, would seek sexual health treatment from Dr. 12 Kelly and thus would be unwittingly subjected to his sexual misconduct and discrimination. 13 241. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Dr. Kelly’s unlawful conduct as 14 alleged herein, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer economic loss, emotional distress, 15 humiliation, embarrassment, anxiety, depression, shame, sadness, fear, anger, loss of self-esteem, 16 loss of enjoyment of life, and impairment of daily life activities, all in an amount exceeding the 17 jurisdictional limitations of the Superior Court and in an amount according to proof at trial. 18 Plaintiffs are further entitled to actual damages, statutory damages, and treble damages according 19 to proof. Plaintiffs are further entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to Civil Code section 52 20 subsection (a), or any other appropriate relief. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of the Bane Act (Civil Code § 52.1) (Plaintiffs Against All Defendants) 21 22 23 24 25 242. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 243. Defendants’ actions as alleged herein have had and will continue to interfere with 26 Plaintiffs’ right to be free from gender discrimination in the form of sexual harassment in an 27 educational and collegiate athletic setting, codified under 20 U.S.C., § 1681. Plaintiffs further had 28 -62COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 a right to have Defendant USC respond immediately and investigate their sexual assault, 2 molestation, harassment, and discrimination by Dr. Kelly. 3 244. During Plaintiffs’ time as students at Defendant USC, Defendants engaged in 4 oppressive and unlawful tactics in ignoring, concealing, and ultimately suppressing Plaintiffs’ 5 complaints of being sexually abused and discriminated against by Dr. Kelly. Plaintiffs were 6 threatened, intimidated, and coerced from reporting Dr. Kelly’s abusive conduct by Dr. Kelly’s 7 own intimidating and humiliating conduct as well as the conspiratorial silence and inaction of 8 Defendant USC. These intentional acts of concealment of Dr. Kelly’s abusive behavior violated 9 the Plaintiffs’ right to be free from discrimination on the basis of gender and sexual orientation. 10 245. Furthermore, Plaintiffs were deprived of Due Process of the law when various 11 complaints to Defendant USC failed to trigger a report, investigation, or other action by Defendant 12 USC who was required to do so under its own policies and procedures, as well as under Federal 13 mandate and the Fourteenth Amendment. In addition, these actions were contrary to Plaintiffs’ 14 civil rights guaranteed under the Constitution of the State of California. 15 246. Defendants’ wrongful conduct was intended to, and did successfully interfere with, 16 Plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights to be free from gender and sexual orientation discrimination and 17 harassment as well as interfered with their Due Process rights under the United States Constitution 18 and specifically the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment. 19 247. Defendants unlawfully and wrongfully used or employed others to wrongfully use 20 threats, intimidation, harassment, violence, and coercion over Plaintiffs’ person, to which 21 Plaintiffs had no relief except to submit to Defendants’ wrongful threats, intimidations, 22 harassment, violence and coercion, which rendered Plaintiffs’ submission involuntary. 23 248. Defendants’ above-noted actions were the direct and proximate causes of physical, 24 psychological, emotional, and economic damages, and damages to the Plaintiffs, who have 25 suffered and continue to suffer to this date. 26 249. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Dr. Kelly’s unlawful conduct as 27 alleged herein, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer economic loss, emotional distress, 28 humiliation, embarrassment, anxiety, depression, shame, sadness, fear, anger, loss of self-esteem, -63COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 loss of enjoyment of life, and impairment of daily life activities, all in an amount exceeding the 2 jurisdictional limitations of the Superior Court and in an amount according to proof at trial. 3 250. The aforementioned conduct by Defendant Dr. Kelly was willful, wanton, and 4 malicious. At all relevant times herein, Dr. Kelly acted with conscious disregard of the Plaintiffs’ 5 rights and feelings. Dr. Kelly also acted with the knowledge of or with reckless disregard for the 6 fact that his conduct was certain to cause injury and/or harm to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are further 7 informed and believe and thereon allege that Dr. Kelly intended to cause fear, physical injury, 8 humiliation, embarrassment and/or pain and suffering to the Plaintiffs. By virtue of the foregoing, 9 Plaintiffs are entitled to recover punitive damages from Dr. Kelly according to proof at trial. 10 251. In subjecting Plaintiffs to the treatment described herein, Defendants are entitled to 11 compensatory damages in a sum according to proof, emotional distress damages, punitive 12 damages attorney’s fees, and other damages pursuant to Civil Code section 52 subsection (b) and a 13 temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction or permanent injunction ordering 14 Defendants to refrain from conduct or activities as alleged herein, and other such relief as the 15 Court deems just and proper. 16 17 18 19 20 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Sexual Abuse and Discrimination in an Educational Setting (Education Code § 220) (Plaintiffs Against All Defendants) 252. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 253. Plaintiffs were harmed by being subjected to discrimination, abuse, molestation, 21 sexual assault, and/or sexual harassment at USC because of Plaintiffs’ gender and sexual 22 orientation, and Defendants are responsible for that harm. 23 254. Plaintiffs suffered abuse, harassment, and discrimination that was so severe, 24 pervasive and offensive that it effectively deprived Plaintiffs of the right to equal access to 25 educational benefits and opportunities. 26 255. Defendants had actual and/or constructive knowledge of this sexual abuse and 27 discrimination because Defendant USC received and then ignored numerous complaints of Dr. 28 Kelly’s abuse, discrimination, and/or harassment. -64COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 256. In the face of this knowledge of sexual abuse, harassment, and discrimination that 2 was being perpetrated on Plaintiffs by Dr. Kelly, Defendants acted with deliberate indifference 3 toward responding to these alarms and preventing further abuse. Defendants allowed Dr. Kelly to 4 remain as a physician at USC to sexually abuse, harass, and discriminate against other patients. 5 257. As a direct and proximate result of Dr. Kelly’s unlawful conduct as alleged herein, 6 Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer economic loss, emotional distress, humiliation, 7 embarrassment, anxiety, depression, shame, sadness, fear, anger, loss of self-esteem, loss of 8 enjoyment of life, and impairment of daily life activities, all in an amount exceeding the 9 jurisdictional limitations of the Superior Court and in an amount according to proof at trial. 10 258. The aforementioned conduct by Defendants was willful, wanton, and malicious. At 11 all relevant times herein, Defendants acted with conscious disregard of the Plaintiffs’ rights and 12 feelings. Defendants also acted with the knowledge of or with reckless disregard for the fact that 13 his conduct was certain to cause injury and/or harm to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are further informed 14 and believe and thereon allege that Defendants intended to cause fear, physical injury, humiliation, 15 embarrassment and/or pain and suffering to the Plaintiffs. By virtue of the foregoing, Plaintiffs 16 are entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants according to proof at trial. 17 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION Negligent Hiring and Retention (Plaintiffs Against Defendant USC and Does 1 through 100) 18 19 20 21 22 23 259. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 260. Defendant USC hired Dr. Kelly to be a men’s healthy physician at its Student Health Center. 261. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Dr. Kelly was and/or 24 became unfit and/or incompetent to perform work for which he was hired because of the sexual 25 misconduct and discriminatory conduct he participated in towards young male gay and bisexual 26 students. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe that Defendant USC learned that Dr. Kelly 27 had been sexually harassing, discriminating against, and abusing young male gay and bisexual 28 students and failed to take appropriate or corrective action. Plaintiffs are informed and believe -65COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 that had Defendant USC taken prompt and correct action against Dr. Kelly, that Plaintiffs would 2 not have been sexually battered, harassed, or discriminated against. 3 262. Defendants USC failed to use reasonable and ordinary care in order to avoid injury 4 to Plaintiffs. This includes but is not limited to, Defendants’ failure to exercise a duty of care to 5 avoid Dr. Kelly’s sexual battery, harassment, and discrimination of gay and bisexual male 6 patients, including Plaintiffs, causing them injury. 7 263. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant USC knew or 8 should have known that Plaintiffs were being subjected to unlawful battery and discrimination 9 based on complaints that had been made to USC and its agents, employees, and staff. 10 264. Plaintiffs are informed and allege that despite being informed of Dr. Kelly’s 11 unlawful conduct, Defendant USC failed to discipline Dr. Kelly and kept him in their employ, 12 thereby ratifying his conduct. 13 265. The conduct of USC constitutes negligence and is actionable under the laws of the 14 State of California. 15 266. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiffs 16 have suffered and continue to suffer economic loss, emotional distress, humiliation, 17 embarrassment, anxiety, depression, shame, sadness, fear, anger, loss of self-esteem, loss of 18 enjoyment of life, and impairment of daily life activities, all in an amount exceeding the 19 jurisdictional limitations of the Superior Court and in an amount according to proof at trial. 20 267. The aforementioned conduct by Defendant USC was reckless and with conscious 21 disregard of the Plaintiffs’ rights. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to recover punitive damages 22 from USC in an amount according to proof at trial. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION Negligent Supervision (Plaintiffs Against Defendant USC and Does 1 through 100) 23 24 268. 25 Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in the 26 preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 27 \\\ 28 \\\ -66COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 269. Defendants had a duty to provide Plaintiffs with a men’s sexual health physician 2 who would provide each of them with a professional STD exam and advice, devoid of any 3 sexually harassing, abusive, assaulting, or discriminatory conduct. 4 5 270. Defendants and each of them owed Plaintiffs a duty of care to act in a reasonable and ordinary manner so as not to cause Plaintiffs foreseeable harm. 6 271. Defendants failed to use ordinary and reasonable care in order to avoid injury to 7 Plaintiffs. This includes but it not limited to, Defendants’ failure to exercise ordinary care to 8 avoid Dr. Kelly’s sexual abuse and discrimination of male gay and bisexual students, including 9 Plaintiffs. 10 272. Defendant USC knew or had reason to believe Dr. Kelly was engaged in sexual 11 misconduct and discrimination against male gay and bisexual students because students 12 complained to USC regarding Dr. Kelly’s conduct, and USC knew or should have known that Dr. 13 Kelly created a particular risk to students. Defendant USC did not act in a reasonable manner 14 when it failed to take appropriate and corrective action and continued to employ Dr. Kelly as the 15 only men’s health physician at the Student Health Center. 16 273. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that despite being informed 17 of Dr. Kelly’s unlawful conduct, Defendant USC failed to discipline Dr. Kelly and kept him in 18 their employ, thereby ratifying his unlawful conduct. 274. 19 As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiffs 20 have suffered and continue to suffer economic loss, emotional distress, humiliation, 21 embarrassment, anxiety, depression, shame, sadness, fear, anger, loss of self-esteem, loss of 22 enjoyment of life, and impairment of daily life activities, all in an amount exceeding the 23 jurisdictional limitations of the Superior Court and in an amount according to proof at trial. 275. 24 The aforementioned conduct by Defendant USC was reckless and with conscious 25 disregard of the Plaintiffs’ rights. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to recover punitive damages 26 from USC in an amount according to proof at trial. 27 \\\ 28 \\\ -67COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Fraudulent Misrepresentation (Plaintiffs Against Defendant USC and Does 1 through 100) 2 3 4 5 276. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 277. By holding Dr. Kelly out as an agent of Defendants and by allowing him to 6 undertake the care of young patients such as Plaintiffs, Defendants entered into a confidential, 7 fiduciary, and special relationship with Plaintiffs. By holding themselves out as a preeminent 8 collegiate facility, thereby enticing Plaintiffs to attend USC for undergraduate and graduate 9 students, Defendants entered into a special and fiduciary relationship with Plaintiffs. 10 278. Defendant USC represented to Plaintiffs that Dr. Kelly was a safe, proper, 11 professional physician, and that they would be receiving standard and appropriate men’s sexual 12 health examinations at USC, when in truth, Dr. Kelly was participating in misconduct and 13 Plaintiffs were being abused, harassed, and discriminated against by Dr. Kelly. 14 279. Defendants’ representation was false. 15 280. Defendants knew that the representation was false when made or Defendants made 16 17 18 19 such a representation recklessly without regard for its truth. 281. Defendants intended that Plaintiffs rely on that representation, and Plaintiffs reasonably relied on Defendants’ representation. 282. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct as alleged herein, 20 Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer economic loss, severe emotional distress, 21 humiliation, embarrassment, anxiety, depression, shame, sadness, fear, anger, loss of self-esteem, 22 loss of enjoyment of life, and impairment of daily life activities, all in an amount exceeding the 23 jurisdictional limitations of the Superior Court and in an amount according to proof at trial. 24 25 26 283. Plaintiffs’ reliance on Defendants’ representation was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ harm. 284. Defendants’ conduct was reckless and with conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights 27 and safety. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages against Defendants in 28 an amount to be determined according to proof at trial. -68COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Fraudulent Concealment (Plaintiffs Against Defendant USC and Does 1 through 100) 1 2 285. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in the 3 preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 4 286. By holding Dr. Kelly out as an agent of Defendants and by allowing him to 5 undertake the care of young patients such as Plaintiffs, Defendants entered into a confidential, 6 fiduciary, and special relationship with Plaintiffs. By holding themselves out as a preeminent 7 collegiate facility, thereby enticing Plaintiffs to attend USC for undergraduate and graduate 8 students, Defendants entered into a special and fiduciary relationship with Plaintiffs. 9 287. Defendant USC represented intentionally failed to disclose to Plaintiffs known 10 facts or facts that could have been discovered by Defendants, including that USC had received 11 complaints about Dr. Kelly’s misconduct in the past, and that Dr. Kelly engaged in inappropriate, 12 abusive, harassing, and discriminatory conduct towards the gay and bisexual male student 13 population at USC. Furthermore, USC prevented Plaintiffs from discovering such facts by failing 14 to take appropriate action with respect to complaints made regarding Dr. Kelly, including 15 investigations or reporting to the State Medical Board, silencing its students and staff to protect its 16 own reputation, and allowing Dr. Kelly to continue treating patients for years. USC’s concealed 17 this information with an intent to deceive Plaintiffs and other students at USC. 18 288. Plaintiffs were not aware of Dr. Kelly’s discriminatory and abusive misconduct, 19 and had they been aware, they would not have received medical treatment from Dr. Kelly nor 20 subjected themselves to such harm. 21 289. As a direct and proximate result of USC’s concealment, Plaintiffs were harmed and 22 such concealment was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ harm. 23 290. Defendants’ conduct was reckless and with conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights 24 and safety. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages against Defendants in 25 an amount to be determined according to proof at trial. 26 \\\ 27 \\\ 28 -69COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Negligent Misrepresentation (Plaintiffs Against Defendant USC and Does 1 through 100) 2 291. 3 4 Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 292. 5 Defendant USC misrepresented that Dr. Kelly was a professional men’s health 6 physician, without reasonable ground for believing it to be true (insomuch as Defendants had been 7 aware of Dr. Kelly’s sexually inappropriate and discriminatory conduct) and with the intent to 8 induce Plaintiffs’ reliance on such misrepresentation. 293. 9 Defendants represented to Plaintiffs that they were receiving a standard men’s 10 sexual health examination when in truth they were being sexually abused and discriminated 11 against by Dr. Kelly. 12 294. 13 misrepresentation. 14 295. Plaintiffs were ignorant of the truth and justifiably relied on Defendants’ As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct as alleged herein, 15 Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer economic loss, severe emotional distress, 16 humiliation, embarrassment, anxiety, depression, shame, sadness, fear, anger, loss of self-esteem, 17 loss of enjoyment of life, and impairment of daily life activities, all in an amount exceeding the 18 jurisdictional limitations of the Superior Court and in an amount according to proof at trial. 19 THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Plaintiffs Against All Defendants) 20 296. 21 22 Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 297. 23 By engaging in the above-described conduct, including Dr. Kelly’s pervasive 24 sexual abuse and discrimination and USC’s disregard for complaints regarding Dr. Kelly’s 25 misconduct and continued employ of Dr. Kelly, Defendants engaged in extreme and outrageous 26 conduct with the intention of causing, or with reckless disregard of the probability of causing, 27 emotional distress. 28 \\\ -70COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 298. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct as alleged herein, 2 Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer severe emotional distress, including humiliation, 3 embarrassment, anxiety, depression, shame, sadness, fear, anger, loss of self-esteem, loss of 4 enjoyment of life, and impairment of daily life activities, all in an amount exceeding the 5 jurisdictional limitations of the Superior Court and in an amount according to proof at trial. 6 299. The aforementioned conduct by Defendants was willful, wanton, and malicious. At 7 all relevant times herein, Defendants acted with conscious disregard of the Plaintiffs’ rights and 8 feelings. Defendants also acted with the knowledge of or with reckless disregard for the fact that 9 his conduct was certain to cause injury and/or harm to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are further informed 10 and believe and thereon allege that Defendants intended to cause fear, physical injury, humiliation, 11 embarrassment and/or pain and suffering to the Plaintiffs. By virtue of the foregoing, Plaintiffs 12 are entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants according to proof at trial. 13 FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Negligence (Plaintiffs Against Defendants USC and Does 1 through 100) 14 300. 15 16 Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 301. 17 Prior to and after the first incident of Dr. Kelly’s sexual harassment, abuse, and 18 discrimination of Plaintiffs, through the present, Defendants, knew and/or should have known that 19 Dr. Kelly had and was capable of sexually, physically, and mentally abusing, harassing, and 20 discriminating against Plaintiffs or other victims. 302. 21 Defendants and each of them had special duties to protect the Plaintiffs and other 22 young student-patients, when such individuals were entrusted to Defendants’ care. Plaintiffs’ care, 23 welfare and physical custody was entrusted to Defendants. Defendants voluntarily accepted the 24 entrusted care of Plaintiffs. As such, Defendants owed Plaintiffs a special duty of care that adults 25 and medical professionals dealing with vulnerable medical patients and young students owe to 26 protect them from harm. The duty to protect and warn arose from the special, trusting, 27 confidential, and fiduciary relationship between Defendants and Plaintiffs. 28 \\\ -71COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 303. Defendants breached their duties of care to the Plaintiffs by allowing Dr. Kelly to 2 come into contact with the Plaintiffs and other student-patients without effective supervision; by 3 failing to adequately hire and supervise Dr. Kelly and by continuing to retain Dr. Kelly whom they 4 permitted and enabled to have access to Plaintiffs; by concealing from Plaintiffs, the public and 5 law enforcement that Dr. Kelly was sexually abusing and discriminating against patients; and by 6 holding Dr. Kelly out to Plaintiffs as being of high moral and ethical repute, in good standing and 7 trustworthy. 8 304. Defendants breached their duties to Plaintiffs by failing to investigate or otherwise 9 confirm or deny such facts of sexual abuse and discrimination by Dr. Kelly, failing to reveal such 10 facts to Plaintiffs, the community and law enforcement agencies, and by placing Dr. Kelly into a 11 position of trust and authority, holding him out to Plaintiffs and the public as being in good 12 standing and trustworthy. 13 305. Defendants breached their duty to Plaintiffs by failing to adequately monitor and 14 supervise Dr. Kelly and by failing to prevent Dr. Kelly from discriminating against, and 15 committing wrongful acts with patients, including Plaintiffs. Because of students’ complaints to 16 Defendants regarding Dr. Kelly’s conduct, Defendants knew or should have known of Dr. Kelly’s 17 incapacity to serve as a team physician, physician, and faculty member at Defendants’ institutions, 18 providing for the physical care of young male gay and bisexual students. 306. 19 As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct as alleged herein, 20 Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer severe emotional distress, including humiliation, 21 embarrassment, anxiety, depression, shame, sadness, fear, anger, loss of self-esteem, loss of 22 enjoyment of life, and impairment of daily life activities, all in an amount exceeding the 23 jurisdictional limitations of the Superior Court and in an amount according to proof at trial. 24 FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Unfair Business Practices (Business & Professions Code § 17200) (Plaintiffs Against All Defendants) 25 307. 26 Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in the 27 preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 28 \\\ -72COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 308. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants have 2 engaged in unlawful, unfair and deceptive business practices including allowing Dr. Kelly to 3 engage in repeated abuse and discrimination of student-patients, including Plaintiffs, and failing to 4 take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination and abuse from occurring. The unlawful, unfair 5 and deceptive business practices also included failing to adequately investigate, vet, and evaluate 6 individuals for employment with Defendants USC and Does 1 through 100, refusing to design, 7 implement, and oversee policies regarding sexual misconduct and discrimination of student- 8 patients in a reasonable manner that is customary in similar educational environments. Plaintiffs 9 are informed and believe and on that basis allege that Dr. Kelly and Defendants USC and Does 1 10 through 100 have engaged in unlawful, unfair and deceptive business practices including 11 concealing sexual abuse, harassment, and/or discrimination claims by student-patients, such as 12 Plaintiffs, so as to retain other similarly situated students and to not deter prospective students who 13 were not apprised of such illicit sexual misconduct and discrimination by Dr. Kelly. 14 309. Plaintiffs are informed and believes that Defendants engaged in a common scheme, 15 arrangement or plan to actively conceal allegations against sexual abusers who were employees, 16 agents, members, and/or participants at Defendants USC and Does 1 through 100, including Dr. 17 Kelly, such that Defendants USC and Does 1 through 100 could maintain their public image, and 18 avoid detection of such abuse and discrimination. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon 19 allege that Defendants actively concealed these allegations, such that Defendants would be 20 insulated from public scrutiny, governmental oversight, and/or investigation from various law 21 enforcement agencies, all done in order to maintain the false sense of safety for participants and 22 their families and to perpetuate the program financially. 23 310. By engaging in unlawful, unfair and deceptive business practices, Dr. Kelly and 24 Defendants USC and Does 1 through 100 benefitted financially to the detriment of its competitors, 25 who had to comply with the law. Unless restrained, Defendants USC and Does 1 through 100 will 26 continue to engage in the unfair acts and business practices described above, resulting in great and 27 irreparable harm to Plaintiffs and/or other similarly situated participants and members. 28 \\\ -73COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 311. Plaintiffs seek restitution for all amounts improperly obtained by Dr. Kelly and 2 Defendants USC and Does 1 through 100 through the use of the above-mentioned unlawful 3 business practices, as well as the disgorgement of all ill-gotten gains and restitution on behalf of 4 Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated student-patients who were also subjected to Dr. Kelly and 5 Defendants USC and Does 1 through 100 illegal and unfair business practices. 6 312. Pursuant to section 17203 of the California Business and Professions Code and 7 available equitable powers, Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary and permanent injunction, 8 enjoining Dr. Kelly, Defendants USC and Does 1 through 100 from continuing the unlawful and 9 unfair business practices described above. Further, Plaintiffs seek the appointment of a court 10 monitor to enforce its orders regarding client safety. In addition, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover 11 reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to the California Business and Professions Code and section 12 1021.5 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. 13 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 14 15 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray judgment be entered in their favor and against Defendants, and each of them, as follows: 16 1. For special damages in an amount according to proof; 17 2. For general damages in an amount according to proof; 18 3. For restitution of unjust revenue collected and costs incurred; 19 4. For exemplary and punitive damages pursuant to Civil Code section 3294 or as 20 otherwise allowed by law; 21 5. For any appropriate statutory damages; 22 6. For reasonable attorney’s fees; 23 7. For costs of suit incurred herein; 24 8. For declaratory and injunctive relief, including but not limited to court supervision 25 of Defendant USC; and 26 \\\ 27 \\\ 28 \\\ -74COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 9. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper 2 3 4 5 6 7 DATED: May 3, 2019 KELLOGG & VAN AKEN LLP By________________________________________ Mikayla Gow Kellogg, Esq. Kelly D. Van Aken, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiffs 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -75COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES